Re: [OT-LIST] Unsupported character sets

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:

> >On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Los wrote:
> 
> >> Be advised the only thing I do to get the umlaut in the email is
cut and post
> >> that particular letter into my email, other than that it's no
diffeernt than
> >> any other eamil.
> 
> >understood. this is all quite interesting (for the technical pedant
such
> >as myself, anyway). i had an email broken by a degree sign (coming
from a
> >somewhat broken lotus notes), but never by an umlaut.
> 
> That was my broken lotus notes (well, my work's anyway) but the text
that
> contained the degree symbol was straight fromm Schoon's original
posting on that
> section.

aha. the plot thickens.

>  His posting already seemed to be RTF (Rich-Text Format) which seems
to
> allow the upper-ascii characters.

no, no, not RTF, text/enriched. rfc 1563, amended by 1896:

http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/computing/internet/rfc/rfc1896.txt

it's like a simpler version of html, sort of, only it actually has some
features html doesn't. it's quite, quite mad. apparently it's intended
to
go on being used in email until html is mature enough to replace it.

> Microsoft still supports, and in some respects, even encourages RTF.

rtf is still in use. the latest java includes a huge package of stuff
for
reading, writing and editing rtf. until recently, i wrote essays in rtf
with wordpad as it meant i didn't have to install a real word processor,
and i could fit files on single floppy disks :-).

> Word
> especially is a major culprit.  It seems if you have a plain text
document, then
> put in a non-ascii character, it sort of internally converts things to
RTF...or
> some such wierdness.

well, MS are supposed to be going to XML for everything; that can only
make things worse. don't get me wrong, i think xml is great; it's a
really
powerful language. but MS can use that power for Evil (tm) ...

> >> It's not like I'm doing HTML.
> 
> >i don't think anyone on this list does. although schoon has posted in
> >"text/enriched" once or twice, which is pretty exotic - that's a
> >formatted-text format that was defined years ago and obsoleted by
HTML
> >version one. i'm at a loss to explain it's presence in a modern-day
email.
> 
> As noted, it was Schoon's RTF that contained the degree symbol, and in
my
> re-reading it, I failed to notice it, or else I would have stripped it
out.
> Microsoft still supports, and in some respects, even encourages RTF. 
Word
> especially is a major culprit.  It seems if you have a plain text
document, then
> put in a non-ascii character, it sort of internally converts things to
RTF...or
> some such wierdness.

whoa, deja lu ...

Tom