This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Compiler for Red Hat Linux 8


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph S. Myers [mailto:jsm28@cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 11:40 AM
> To: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Compiler for Red Hat Linux 8
> 
> 
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> 
> > Looking at the headers you'll see that you send only 
> us-ascii (a quite old
> > subset of iso-8859) while a lot of people use the 
> *standard* iso charset,
> > where 0x91 is "opening single quote", 0x92 closing, 0x93 
> "opening double
> > quote" and 0x94 closing.
> 
> Have you actually *read* ISO 8859-1, or the free equivalent 
> ECMA-94, or an
> adopted national standards body version, or even the draft
> <URL:http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG3/docs/n411.pdf>?  
> These are not
> graphic characters in the standard.

Ooops, my fault ;-( 

Reading a bit too fast and not noticing some green/black differences in
character tables, where green means "Microsoft-specific", in a Web-page
documenting the 8859-1 character set standard; OK I agree, I was not reading
the OFFICIAL standard, but...

> 
> If you haven't actually read a standard (any standard), please don't
> spread misinformation about its contents by making claims about the
> standard without referring to it.
> 

I should loudly apologize here.

I was fooled by reading a *description* of the standard, found on the web,
instead of the *official* standard (I don't know anyway if it's accessible
on-line) 

AND 

by Micro$oft "claiming" that it send iso-8859-1 encoded mail while its in
fact microsoft-extended-8859-1 

AND 

by this being so well-knowned by people commenting the standard that they
publish character tables where the main indication of this m$-ism (if you
read a bit fast and jump to the nice character tables) is that some
characters are displayed in dark green instead of black

and also probably as I don't have such good eyes :-)

The morale for this may be: Don't trust too much programs (be them Microsoft
or not) that claim to be conforming to a standard and *always* verify
several times before... 

Now I think it's enough for this broadly off-topic sub-thread :-)

Best regards

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]