in reply to Re^2: OSCON Perl Unicode Slides
in thread OSCON Perl Unicode Slides

I challenge you to find a single, whole published work by any one of these authors that was printed entirely using the ASCII character set.

And I challenge you to show that none of them have.

Counter arguement: Check out the 'charset' attribute of the 'Content=type' meta-tag of the html formats of any of the books at Project Gutenberg.

Prediction: You are going to argue about what constitutes: "published".

Bottom line: If you were instructed to "resume writing your resume", you would have no trouble in distinguishing la difference. Just as you had no trouble in hearing "dif-er-anse" instead of "diff-rence" as you read the last word of the previous sentence.

Just as you will have no trouble distinguishing the salient words in:

  1. Messers Corbin & Son took the lead in the efficient smelting of lead.
  2. He was now so close that he could close the trap with barely a flick of his finger.
  3. Every day, come wind or rain, the old man climbed the steps of the exposed bell-tower to wind the ancient mechanism.
  4. Unable to bear the immense weight of the full-grown grizzly bear standing on his back, he groaned aloud. It was the last sound he would ever make.
  5. It had taken him 3 days to clear the weeds, turn the sod and sow the seed potatoes he'd resisted eating all summer. To see that the pregnant sow had undone all that work in less than an hour was heartbreaking.

Unicode has its place, but revising history to make a point is stupid. There are good arguments for unicode, but bad arguments are just bad arguments, regardless of the subject.

Overstating your case diminishes your credibility.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: OSCON Perl Unicode Slides
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jul 25, 2011 at 20:42 UTC

    The distinction — and it's a critical one — is between writing English comprehensibly and writing English properly. You're focusing on the former, whereas Tom is talking about the latter. Let it go, man.

[reply]
      The distinction — and it's a critical one — is between writing English comprehensibly and writing English properly. You're focusing on the former
      1. Comprehensibility is important. If your reader does not comprehend you, syntax is preventing communication. This is bad.
      2. Properness is an affectation, adopted when it suits; nebulous; subjective; divisive; transient; elitist; fluid to ones aims and prejudices.

        Utterly unimportant to anyone except those choosing to make it so.

      Let it go, man.

      I think I recognise that phrasing as a generous importation to better judgement. Sorry, but no :(

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

        Point is, you and Tom (and your respective factions) are caught in an endless cycle of "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" because you're not even using the same metrics. It's a pointless flame war.

[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^4: OSCON Perl Unicode Slides
by Jim (Curate) on Jul 25, 2011 at 20:33 UTC
    Counter arguement: Check out the 'charset' attribute of the 'Content=type' meta-tag of the html formats of any of the books at Project Gutenberg.

    OK, I did. It’s ISO 8859-1, not ASCII. How’s this a counterargument?

    Bottom line: If you were instructed to "resume writing your resume", you would have no trouble in distinguishing la difference.

    Tom’s assertion is that computer software (“code”) that assumes English-language digital text won’t have letters and punctuation in it that aren’t among the 94 printable characters in the ASCII character set is wrong. He’s right. This is the bottom line.

    This paragraph is written entirely in English—no accented “foreign” words or loanwords with diacritics—and yet it’s full of non-ASCII characters. Hopefully, you’re not using lousy computer software—the kind of “code” Tom assails in his anti-pattern—that renders this paragraph like this…

    This paragraph is written entirely in English?no accented ?foreign? words or loanwords with diacritics?and yet it?s full of non-ASCII characters. Hopefully, you?re not using lousy computer software?the kind of ?code? Tom assails in his anti-pattern?that renders this paragraph like this?

[reply]
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations