On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 21:08:40 UTC, Marcin Mstowski wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Joakim <joa...@airpost.net>
wrote:
Also, one of the first pages talks about representations of
floating point
and integer numbers, which are outside the purview of the text
encodings
we're talking about.
They are outside of scope of CDRA too. At least read picture
description
before making out of context assumptions.
Which picture description did you have in mind? They all seem
fairly generic. I do see now that one paragraph does say that
CDRA only deals with graphical characters and that they were only
talking about numbers earlier to introduce the topic of data
representation.
If you can show that it is materially similar to my
single-byte encoding
idea, it might be worth looking into.
Spending ~15 min to read Introduction isn't worth your time, so
why should
i waste my time showing you anything ?
You claimed that my encoding was reinventing the wheel, therefore
the onus is on you to show which of the multiple encodings CDRA
uses that I'm reinventing. I'm not interested in delving into
the docs for some dead IBM format to prove _your_ point. More
likely, you are just dead wrong and CDRA simply uses code pages,
which are not the same as the single-byte encoding with a header
idea that I've sketched in this thread.
