in reply to Re^10: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

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?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: Native newline encoding
by sauoq (Abbot) on May 28, 2012 at 19:25 UTC
    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]
      I didn't know there was a single RFC in question.

      That explains a lot.

      You didn't bother to read the post to which you responded, or follow the links it contained; just knee-jerked a pointless response to a closing comment that had little to do with the main text of that post.

      And now try to further distract with a bunch of meaningless, irrelevant statistics unrelated to anything in particular.

      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]
        I see. Well, in my defense, it was easy to read:
        Things (will) get far more messy once the RFCs start dealing with Unicrap.

        And think that by using the plural "RFCs" you were talking about more than one... like all of them in general. Or, at the least, all of them related to FTP.

        Of course, it's unlikely that the FTP RFCs will be greatly affected by "unicrap" because unicode is just binary.

        If you still don't see where I was coming from, there's no point in continuing. Truly.

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

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom