//Hello Rob,//

on *27.02.2025* at *7:05:46* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Nomination"*.

this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and a
busload if IBMPC ...

Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values?

Yes.

Here's the counts as I see for this area currently:

$ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC
70

$ grep -c CHRS.*CP437
516

$ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8
686

Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for actual kludge values may yield different results.

Anyway, my search was also wrong. Correct results for my message base (dating back for this area to 2006, cannot say if there are holes in time) are:

IBMPC: 2245
CP437: 3385

Different numbers, but still they show that there is a quite lot of usage of IBMPC and you have to admit, that this echo might attract more than average of CP437 advocates.

Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in outgoing messages!

My inner Monk would prefer CP437, but I am coming from industry and have always valued the customer experience more.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Re: Re^2: Nomination
By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Thu Feb 27 2025 03:30 pm

//Hello Rob,//

on *27.02.2025* at *7:05:46* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Nomination"*.

this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and a
busload if IBMPC ...

Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values?

Yes.

Here's the counts as I see for this area currently:

$ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC
70

$ grep -c CHRS.*CP437
516

$ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8
686

Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for actual kludge values may yield different results.

Anyway, my search was also wrong. Correct results for my message base (dating back for this area to 2006, cannot say if there are holes in time) are:

IBMPC: 2245
CP437: 3385

There are other charsets too, most importantly: ASCII

Different numbers, but still they show that there is a quite lot of usage of IBMPC and you have to admit, that this echo might attract more than average of CP437 advocates.

Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in outgoing messages!

If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what *this* message is reporting! :-)

My inner Monk would prefer CP437, but I am coming from industry and have always valued the customer experience more.

It depends on the content of the message. I think "IBMPC" has been determined to be too vague to be meaningful where as ASCII, CP437, and UTF-8 are very precise.
--
Rob Swindell
FTSC Standing Member and stand-in Election Coordinator
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

//Hello Rob,//

on *27.02.2025* at *20:36:22* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re^2: Nomination"*.

Re: Re^2: Nomination
By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Thu Feb 27 2025 03:30 pm

Hello Rob,

on 27.02.2025 at 7:05:46 You wrote in Area FTSC_PUBLIC to Tim Schattkowsky
about "Re: Nomination".

this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and

a

busload if IBMPC ...

Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values?

Yes.

Here's the counts as I see for this area currently:

$ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC
70

$ grep -c CHRS.*CP437
516

$ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8
686

Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for
actual kludge values may yield different results.

Anyway, my search was also wrong. Correct results for my message base
(dating back for this area to 2006, cannot say if there are holes in time)
are:

IBMPC: 2245
CP437: 3385

There are other charsets too, most importantly: ASCII

Different numbers, but still they show that there is a quite lot of usage
of IBMPC and you have to admit, that this echo might attract more than
average of CP437 advocates.

Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in
outgoing messages!

If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what this message is reporting! :-)

Generally, this is more about the system capabilites than the actual message. So even if most messages from a user of a certain system are plain ASCII, there may be all thos borders and ASCII art that are sometimes also used that need a clear definition beyond ASCII.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Hey Tim!

there may be all thos borders and ASCII art that are sometimes also
used

But those are *NEVER* ASCII. ASCII is *ALWAYS* 7-bit characters while line/box drawing characters are 8-bit which *SHOULD* exclude them if CHARS are set to ASCII. The penguins below are true ASCII art but the Ænglisc characters require UTF-8. CP437 and other IBM character sets just can't cut it whcn it comes to supporting actual languages, including many Latin based ones.

As for IBMPC, I think you're sucking slough water. I seriously doubt IBM itself would openly support it as a valid character set. Last time I checked IANA doesn't.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o o- -o o-
(\ /) (\ /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Lida biþ longe on siþe; a mon sceal seþeah leofes wenan.
A sailor is long away, but still the loved one must be looked for.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.37(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)

Re: Re^3: Nomination
By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Fri Feb 28 2025 07:14 pm

If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what this message is reporting! :-)

Generally, this is more about the system capabilites than the actual message. So even if most messages from a user of a certain system are plain ASCII, there may be all thos borders and ASCII art that are sometimes also used that need a clear definition beyond ASCII.

No, the CHRS kludge describes the *content* of the message (and header fields, e.g. subject) *only*, not borders or anything else that might frame the message for the user/terminal viewing it.

If the message is comprised of only US-ASCII characters, it should be flying the "ASCII" CHRS value.
--
Rob Swindell
FTSC Standing Member and stand-in Election Coordinator
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

//Hello Rob,//

on *01.03.25* at *1:27:21* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re^3: Nomination"*.

No, the CHRS kludge describes the content of the message (and header fields, e.g. subject) only, not borders or anything else that might frame the message for the user/terminal viewing it.

I mean borders in the sense of characters forming a frame around something, as is popular for file announcements, stats etc. ;)

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Tim Schattkowsky wrote to Rob Swindell <=-

No, the CHRS kludge describes the content of the message (and header fields, e.g. subject) only, not borders or anything else that might frame the message for the user/terminal viewing it.

I mean borders in the sense of characters forming a frame around something, as is popular for file announcements, stats etc. ;)

Isn't that what he just said, right there above???



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

//Hello Dan,//

on *04.03.25* at *13:46:06* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Re^4: Nomination"*.

Tim Schattkowsky wrote to Rob Swindell <=-

No, the CHRS kludge describes the content of the message (and header
fields, e.g. subject) only, not borders or anything else that might
frame the message for the user/terminal viewing it.

I mean borders in the sense of characters forming a frame around
something, as is popular for file announcements, stats etc. ;)

Isn't that what he just said, right there above???

Dont think so, as I describe encoded message content.

To be honest, I am not sure what Rob actually describes, but it seems he thinks its not related to characters (e.g., spacing).

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)