in reply to Re^8: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

Blah ...

Now who's "getting all epistemological".

What you should learn ...

What you need to learn is that your platform-bias bullshit is naught but the meaningless dogma of last resort.

If there were no platform differences, the subject of this entire thread wouldn't exist, but it does. And you can neither wish it away nor bullshit your way around it.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
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.

The start of some sanity?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Native newline encoding
by sauoq (Abbot) on May 28, 2012 at 18:45 UTC
    What you need to learn is that your platform-bias bullshit is naught but the meaningless dogma of last resort.

    What platform bias?

    My bias is against poor design choices. And pretty much every platform has some design choices that I think are, at best, questionable.

    The design choice we are talking about will likely disappear in time. That's something to look forward to.

    This sub-thread was in response to your histrionics about RFCs getting "messy" with "unicrap". Your emotional language notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the RFCs will remain the antithesis of "messy." Plenty of them, over the last 15+ years, have already been written with Unicode in mind. There's really no need for the gnashing of teeth and ringing of hands.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
[reply]

      The RFC in question mentions Unicode exactly twice. Both times in reference only to file names, not their content.

      And even for file names, and goes on to state: It is understood that the lack of well-defined semantics for file names may cause interoperability problems.

      As for emotions; the only emotions I see are your embarrassment at making an obvious cock-up, and your ever more desperate & puerile attempts to distract from it.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      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.

      The start of some sanity?
[reply]
        The RFC in question . . .

        Which one is that? I didn't know there was a single RFC in question.

        And I didn't even post in the thread you linked to. (Update: I see you fixed the link, but I still don't see the "cock-up" you refer to. I think you are sadly confused. Salva's responses in this thread, btw, have only reinforced that I was answering the question he was asking.)

        Update: Approximate mentions of " UTF" or "Unicode" in RFCs by year. 

        1992: 4
1993: 6
1994: 177
1995: 17
1996: 93
1997: 334
1998: 233
1999: 395
2000: 377
2001: 173
2002: 194
2003: 581
2004: 321
2005: 418
2006: 739
2007: 392
2008: 755
2009: 297
2010: 874
2011: 502
2012: 275

        [download]

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom