FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[William Blunn]

I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16 years, 
including using "find".

I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed by it seemingly 
missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.

It seems that "find" has an optimisation relating to the hard link count on 
directories and the presence or otherwise of the "." and ".." objects.

If the filesystem you are finding on doesn't have the "." and ".." objects then "find" 
will fail silently(!)

To get it to work, you need to turn the optimisation off with the "-noleaf" option.

This is documented in the man page, but when you come to the symptoms cold, it looks 
more like a subsystem issue than an application issue, so it didn't occur to me to 
look in the documentation for "find".

The problem here is that the route to discovery of the solution is somewhat tricky.

(In fact you could say that it is a dangerous optimisation in find.  If the 
optimisation is not valid, there are no error messages and it fails silently.  I guess 
I should be looking to see if this issue has already come up on the upstream version 
of find.)

My point is this:

Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin means that this 
issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend not to arise under traditional 
unixes.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention this issue in the Cygwin FAQ?

Possibly as a second point under the existing heading of 
"I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

We could have an extra paragraph that goes something like this:

If find does not seem to be producing enough results, or seems to be missing out some 
directories, you may be experiencing a problem with one of find's optimisations.  See 
the documentation for the option '-noleaf' in the man page.

Bill

The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not
a named addressee, please inform us as soon as possible on
+44 118 901 2999 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are
not a named addressee you must not copy, use, disclose, distribute,
print or rely on this e-mail. Any views expressed in this e-mail or any
attachments may not necessarily reflect those of Tao's management.
Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should scan this
e-mail and any attachments for viruses. Tao makes no representation or
warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments.
Please note that for the protection of our business, we may monitor and
read e-mails sent to and from our server(s).

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[Larry Hall]

At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
>I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16 years, 
>including using "find".
>
>I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed by it 
>seemingly missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.
>
>It seems that "find" has an optimisation relating to the hard link count on 
>directories and the presence or otherwise of the "." and ".." objects.
>
>If the filesystem you are finding on doesn't have the "." and ".." objects then 
>"find" will fail silently(!)
>
>To get it to work, you need to turn the optimisation off with the "-noleaf" option.
>
>This is documented in the man page, but when you come to the symptoms cold, it looks 
>more like a subsystem issue than an application issue, so it didn't occur to me to 
>look in the documentation for "find".
>
>The problem here is that the route to discovery of the solution is somewhat tricky.
>
>(In fact you could say that it is a dangerous optimisation in find.  If the 
>optimisation is not valid, there are no error messages and it fails silently.  I 
>guess I should be looking to see if this issue has already come up on the upstream 
>version of find.)


Right.  I'd agree with this notion.


>My point is this:
>
>Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin means that this 
>issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend not to arise under 
>traditional unixes.


Why's that?


>Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention this issue in the Cygwin FAQ?
>
>Possibly as a second point under the existing heading of 
>"I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"
>
>We could have an extra paragraph that goes something like this:
>
>If find does not seem to be producing enough results, or seems to be missing out some 
>directories, you may be experiencing a problem with one of find's optimisations.  See 
>the documentation for the option '-noleaf' in the man page.
>


That seems to be reasonable wording.  But my inclination would be to get
the results of more research into the 'find' issue before adding this to the 
Cygwin doc somewhere (not sure if the FAQ is quite the right spot given that
we haven't seen allot of questions about it - at least not yet ;-) ).  Would
you be able to look into this further?


--
Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Bill,

While you can do nothing about the legal disclaimer (except, maybe,
precede it with sigdashes ["-- "] so that it gets automatically cut off on
replies by smarter mailers), .
Thanks.  More below.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:

> I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16
> years, including using "find".
>
> I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed
> by it seemingly missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.
>
> It seems that "find" has an optimisation relating to the hard link count
> on directories and the presence or otherwise of the "." and ".."
> objects.
>
> If the filesystem you are finding on doesn't have the "." and ".."
> objects then "find" will fail silently(!)
>
> To get it to work, you need to turn the optimisation off with the
> "-noleaf" option.
>
> This is documented in the man page, but when you come to the symptoms
> cold, it looks more like a subsystem issue than an application issue, so
> it didn't occur to me to look in the documentation for "find".
>
> The problem here is that the route to discovery of the solution is
> somewhat tricky.
>
> (In fact you could say that it is a dangerous optimisation in find.  If
> the optimisation is not valid, there are no error messages and it fails
> silently.  I guess I should be looking to see if this issue has already
> come up on the upstream version of find.)
>
> My point is this:
>
> Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
> means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
> not to arise under traditional unixes.
>
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention this issue in the Cygwin FAQ?
>
> Possibly as a second point under the existing heading of "I'm having
> basic problems with find. Why?"
>
> We could have an extra paragraph that goes something like this:
>
> If find does not seem to be producing enough results, or seems to be
> missing out some directories, you may be experiencing a problem with one
> of find's optimisations.  See the documentation for the option '-noleaf'
> in the man page.
>
> Bill

Thanks for the report and the analysis.

Alternatively, since this optimization doesn't always seem valid on
Cygwin, perhaps the findutils maintainer will consider turning it off by
default in the Cygwin distribution.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[William Blunn]

On 2004-07-08, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
> >I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be
> >16 years, including using "find".
> >
> >I was using "find" today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was
> >perplexed by it seemingly missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at
> >random.
> >
> >It seems that "find" has an optimisation relating to the hard link
> >count on directories and the presence or otherwise of the "." and
> >".." objects.
> >
> >If the filesystem you are finding on doesn't have the "." and ".."
> >objects then "find" will fail silently(!)
> >
> >To get it to work, you need to turn the optimisation off with the "-
> >noleaf" option.
> >
> >This is documented in the man page, but when you come to the symptoms
> >cold, it looks more like a subsystem issue than an application issue, so
> >it didn't occur to me to look in the documentation for "find".
> >
> >The problem here is that the route to discovery of the solution is
> >somewhat tricky.
> >
> >(In fact you could say that it is a dangerous optimisation in find.
> >If the optimisation is not valid, there are no error messages and it
> >fails silently.  I guess I should be looking to see if this issue has
> >already come up on the upstream version of find.)
> 
> Right.  I'd agree with this notion.
> 
> 
> >My point is this:
> >
> >Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
> >means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
> >not to arise under traditional unixes.
> 
> 
> Why's that?

Traditional unixes have been around for longer.

Cygwin contains more to do with joining together stuff which has origins
in different paradigms, so you are likely to see more problems with edge
cases.

> >Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention this issue in the Cygwin FAQ?
> >
> >Possibly as a second point under the existing heading of 
> >"I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"
> >
> >We could have an extra paragraph that goes something like this:
> >
> >If find does not seem to be producing enough results, or seems to be
> >missing out some directories, you may be experiencing a problem with one
> >of find's optimisations.  See the documentation for the option '-noleaf'
> >in the man page.
> 
> That seems to be reasonable wording.  But my inclination would be to get
> the results of more research into the 'find' issue before adding this to the 
> Cygwin doc somewhere (not sure if the FAQ is quite the right spot given that
> we haven't seen allot of questions about it - at least not yet ;-) ).  Would
> you be able to look into this further?

On Windows XP over NTFS, "find" apparently worked fine without the
"-noleaf" option.

On Windows XP over three DVD-R discs, each containing a distinct data
set, all laid out in UDF/ISO format using Ahead Nero 5.5, "find"
required the "-noleaf" option in order to find all the objects as
expected.

The three discs were an archive copy of a hard disk from a notebook PC,
with the files spread over three DVDs with the decision as to which disk
each group of files was placed on made by estimation of usefulness.

Discs 1 and 2 contained only one directory at the top level of the
hierarchy called "Documents and Settings".  All other objects were below
that directory.

Disc 3 contained multiple directories and files at the top level of the
hierarchy.

The command lines containing "find" would be:

  cd /cygdrive/e
  
  find -type f -print0 | xargs -0 md5sum | sort +1 > somefile

  find -noleaf -type f -print0 | xargs -0 md5sum | sort +1 > somefile

(Where /cygdrive/e refers to a DVD reading drive.)

The idea is to get a file containing a list of MD5 sums of all files in
the hierarchy.

The number of search hits returned was as follows:

  Disc 1
without -noleaf: 0 hits
with-noleaf:  7379 hits
  
  Disc 2
without -noleaf: 0 hits
with-noleaf:  4325 hits

  Disc 3
without -noleaf: 17618 hits
with-noleaf: 37973 hits

I also made a list of MD5 sums from the original notebook hard disk
using a similar command line.

Combining the MD5 sums lists from the DVD-R discs, then sorting the
results and comparing with the MD5 sum list from the original hard disk
results were as follows:

DVD-R discs read without "-noleaf":

  Huge numbers of files completely missing from DVD-R set
  
DVD-R discs read with "-noleaf":

  Minor differences which could all be explained by:
  (a) Filename truncation on DVD-R filesystem
  (b) Permissions issues on the hard disk NTFS filesystem
  (c) Fondling of files by Windows XP in meantime (e.g. desktop.ini)

So, from this my conclusion was that "-noleaf" was necessary when
reading from a DVD-R filesystem made as described above.

The result of zero hits when the top level directory only contains one
directory is consistent with the behaviour described in the "find"
documentation under the "-noleaf" option.

I had Googled for a while to try and find the answer,

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[Larry Hall]

At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
>On 2004-07-08, Larry Hall wrote:
>> At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:




>> >My point is this:
>> >
>> >Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
>> >means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
>> >not to arise under traditional unixes.
>> 
>> 
>> Why's that?
>
>Traditional unixes have been around for longer.
>
>Cygwin contains more to do with joining together stuff which has origins
>in different paradigms, so you are likely to see more problems with edge
>cases.


OK, so your reference to "this issue" was not the find/-noleaf stuff you
found but rather the more general issue regarding functionality and stability
of features in Cygwin, given the differences in maturity.  Sure, I guess
you could make that argument.  I thought you were implying that the 
find/-noleaf problem you ran into was the norm for ISO/UDF media with Windows
and Cygwin yet not for Linux/UNIX.
 




>I suppose even if it doesn't get into the FAQ, it's possible that this
>thread will be archived and be indexed by Google.


Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against getting this into the documentation 
somewhere, or even the FAQ.  I just mentioned that the FAQ probably isn't
the best spot given the current rate of inquiry about it.  The User's 
Guide might be better or perhaps another kind of document all-together.
But you're right.  It is "documented" now in some form at least because 
it's in the email archives.




--
Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:08:15 -0400, Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
> >> >Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
> >> >means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
> >> >not to arise under traditional unixes.
> >>
> OK, so your reference to "this issue" was not the find/-noleaf stuff you
> found but rather the more general issue regarding functionality and stability
> of features in Cygwin, given the differences in maturity.  Sure, I guess
> you could make that argument.  I thought you were implying that the
> find/-noleaf problem you ran into was the norm for ISO/UDF media with Windows
> and Cygwin yet not for Linux/UNIX.

Well, after spending a ridiculous amount of time playing around with
this (it was fun!),
I decided to add it to the "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"
FAQ after all. It appears that Linux works around the '.' '..' UDF
problem at the filesystem driver level (that's kinda a guess, I only
have commercial DVDs to test), which of course Windows doesn't do. As
for other *nixes...well, they should read our FAQ. :)

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"

[Larry Hall]

At 02:34 PM 7/17/2004, you wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:08:15 -0400, Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
>> >> >Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
>> >> >means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
>> >> >not to arise under traditional unixes.
>> >>
>> OK, so your reference to "this issue" was not the find/-noleaf stuff you
>> found but rather the more general issue regarding functionality and stability
>> of features in Cygwin, given the differences in maturity.  Sure, I guess
>> you could make that argument.  I thought you were implying that the
>> find/-noleaf problem you ran into was the norm for ISO/UDF media with Windows
>> and Cygwin yet not for Linux/UNIX.
>
>Well, after spending a ridiculous amount of time playing around with
>this (it was fun!),
>I decided to add it to the "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"
>FAQ after all. It appears that Linux works around the '.' '..' UDF
>problem at the filesystem driver level (that's kinda a guess, I only
>have commercial DVDs to test), which of course Windows doesn't do. As
>for other *nixes...well, they should read our FAQ. :)


Thanks Joshua.  That answers quite clearly my original question on this 
subject.  Great work!




--
Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Igor Pechtchanski]

Bill,

This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully resolve this
issue once and for all, and so, IMO, belongs on the list rather than in
private e-mail.

More below.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:

> > While you can do nothing about the legal disclaimer (except, maybe,
> > precede it with sigdashes ["-- "] so that it gets automatically cut off on
> > replies by smarter mailers), .
>
> Eh?
>
> My mail program wraps long lines just fine thanks!
>
> Any long lines coming into my mail reader are nicely wrapped according
> to whatever window width I configure.

They are in mine too.  But look at the web archive of your message:
.

> Are you suggesting that I insert line breaks at some arbitrary positions
> within my text to cope with other people's broken mail readers?

In a nutshell, yes.  You can make them less than arbitrary (e.g., 72
characters, the default for most mailers).

> I think the problem of wrapping when you hit the end of the line was
> solved before I was born.

Most likely, but sometimes it's essential to not wrap some lines and wrap
others, and this decision can only be made by the person sending the mail.

> If the archive web server emits messages with HTML tags which disable
> line wrapping, then I suggest they turn off that functionality.

The archive takes the plaintext portion of your e-mail and displays it
with all the formatting intact, using the  pair of tags.  This
is intentional, and won't be turned off.

> After all, no-one likes horizontal scroll bars.

Not quite.  If you have a long command in your e-mail, you'd like it all
to be on one line.  I'd have to agree that noone likes unnecessary
horizontal scroll bars.

> By the way, this is not a snap knee-jerk response. This is a problem I
> have seen before. I thought about it then, and my conclusions are as
> valid today as they were then.

As far as I understand, the rules on how to treat long lines, top posting,
and other netiquette issues, are determined by the list or the newsgroup,
and not by individual subscribers.  Although not officially stated
anywhere, I think the custom on this list (partly because of the archive
mechanism) is to wrap unintentional (single paragraph) long lines.  FWIW,
the list (as an entity) has no opinion on top- vs. bottom- vs.
inline-posting, although there are plenty of opinions from the individuals
on the list.

> I do not mind people being critical, and I will listen to reason.
>
> In this case the preferable situation is to preserve the paragraphing,
> and get the wrapping to be done at the proper time, i.e. in the viewer's
> program.

One of the "viewer programs" is the web archive, and since it
(intentionally) doesn't do any line wrapping, we should stick to what
works in all the "viewer programs".

> The cost of wrapping at view time is microscopic.

But, as stated above, sometimes it's impossible to do the wrapping
correctly at view time.

> There is a principle at work here, which is the preservation of
> information.
>
> But I would be delighted to hear your views on the subject.  Why exactly
> is it a good idea to insert linebreaks in the manner you describe?

See above.  Note that these views only apply to the messages sent to this
list, and not for the general e-mail -- I don't mind getting unwrapped
personal e-mail, for example, since my client handles it just fine.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

:) > Any long lines coming into my mail reader are nicely wrapped
:) > according to whatever window width I configure.
:)
:) They are in mine too.  But look at the web archive of your message:
:) .

Igor,

I happened to look at this message in Lynx and did not see anything bad
about it, then it ocurred to me that you were referring to a GUI browser.
This is the case when you are complaining about how it looks in your
browser (probably most people browser), but it's not a defect of the
message, per se (my logic is that it displays well in some browsers, bad
in others, then the problem is not the message, but the browser).

I do understand your concern, but not everyone presses return at the end
of a line (e.g. me), and you will have a hard time making people do that
(I've already written hundreds of messages without pressing return at the
end of the line). My *editor* has automatic wrapping which inserts those
CRs, and if it did not have them, you would see the same problem from me.
Some mailers are configured to send "format=flowed" text, which would
explain why you receive these long lines. This format is widely supported,
and is even supported by Pine 4.60.

format=flowed puts the burden on the receiving end, normally an e-mail
program, not a web browser, so if a web browser can not cope with this
requirement, the thing I would say is "do not use a web browser, use an
e-mail program, you are causing your own problem".

Having said all that, you are free to express your preference on how you
prefer that messages be sent to the list, but if you find that *your*
browser is having a problem, I would advise you to use another browser to
read such messages, or better yet an e-mail program that can cope with
such message. There are too many people in the world that are going to
subscribe to this list that will not know about this and will incurr in
this behavior, I do not think you want to police everyone in this list
(but maybe you do).

I like that you can click in "Raw Text" and see a more readable version of
this same message. That seems to be a good compromise.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> :) > Any long lines coming into my mail reader are nicely wrapped
> :) > according to whatever window width I configure.
> :)
> :) They are in mine too.  But look at the web archive of your message:
> :) .
>
> Igor,
>
> I happened to look at this message in Lynx and did not see anything bad
> about it, then it ocurred to me that you were referring to a GUI browser.
> This is the case when you are complaining about how it looks in your
> browser (probably most people browser), but it's not a defect of the
> message, per se (my logic is that it displays well in some browsers, bad
> in others, then the problem is not the message, but the browser).
>
> I do understand your concern, but not everyone presses return at the end
> of a line (e.g. me), and you will have a hard time making people do that
> (I've already written hundreds of messages without pressing return at the
> end of the line). My *editor* has automatic wrapping which inserts those
> CRs, and if it did not have them, you would see the same problem from me.
> Some mailers are configured to send "format=flowed" text, which would
> explain why you receive these long lines. This format is widely supported,
> and is even supported by Pine 4.60.
>
> format=flowed puts the burden on the receiving end, normally an e-mail
> program, not a web browser, so if a web browser can not cope with this
> requirement, the thing I would say is "do not use a web browser, use an
> e-mail program, you are causing your own problem".
>
> Having said all that, you are free to express your preference on how you
> prefer that messages be sent to the list, but if you find that *your*
> browser is having a problem, I would advise you to use another browser to
> read such messages, or better yet an e-mail program that can cope with
> such message. There are too many people in the world that are going to
> subscribe to this list that will not know about this and will incurr in
> this behavior, I do not think you want to police everyone in this list
> (but maybe you do).
>
> I like that you can click in "Raw Text" and see a more readable version of
> this same message. That seems to be a good compromise.

Eduardo,

We're using the same mailer. :-)  Aside from that, most mailers can be
configured to insert newlines automatically, and it's much easier to
configure the mailer than to get a GUI browser to wrap lines in
-formatted documents.  Besides, even if you look at it in Lynx,
you'll see line breaks in weird places, e.g., in the middle of a word.  I
read it through the archives, and so am hit by this problem more than
most.  I could subscribe to the list and read it via my mail client
(pine), but I have reasons for not doing that, and, in the spirit of what
you said above, people shouldn't be forced to subscribe if alternate
mechanisms are available.

FWIW, "Raw Text" doesn't give you a readable version, it gives you a
MIME-encoded one (with Content-Type quoted-printable), which is not always
the same.

I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate for
this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped if it
ever were to be accepted).  In any case, the definitive opinion will be
that of CGF, and if he says that he doesn't care one way or another, then
my opinion will be just that -- an opinion, and not a list custom of any
sort.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

:) We're using the same mailer. :-)  Aside from that, most mailers can be
:) configured to insert newlines automatically, and it's much easier to
:) configure the mailer than to get a GUI browser to wrap lines in
:) -formatted documents.

I agree with you on most of your assumptions, it is in the conclusions
where we disagree. When a person sends an e-mail message that person does
not send a web page, what I mean to say is that the conventions about
e-mail practice (mostly those regulated by RFCs) apply, not those about
web browsing. We may agree or disagree about format=flowed sent to this
list, but we have to agree that what was sent was an e-mail message,
perfectly valid e-mail message to a mailing list and not a web page to a
web site.

:)  Besides, even if you look at it in Lynx, you'll see line breaks in
:) weird places, e.g., in the middle of a word.

Yes, you are right, it makes it awkward, but readable still.

:)  I read it through the archives, and so am hit by this problem more
:) than most.

I understand.

:)  I could subscribe to the list and read it via my mail client (pine),
:) but I have reasons for not doing that, and, in the spirit of what you
:) said above, people shouldn't be forced to subscribe if alternate
:) mechanisms are available.

True, the list is also available through gname too, but I agree with this
assumption. I respect your reasons why you do not want to read messages
using a mail program though.

:) FWIW, "Raw Text" doesn't give you a readable version, it gives you a
:) MIME-encoded one (with Content-Type quoted-printable), which is not
:) always the same.

Ok, point taken. In the case of this message, the message is quite
readable too, almost the same as reading it with lynx but with the "="
signs added quite scattered through the text.

:) I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
:) for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
:) if it ever were to be accepted).  In any case, the definitive opinion
:) will be that of CGF, and if he says that he doesn't care one way or
:) another, then my opinion will be just that -- an opinion, and not a
:) list custom of any sort.

The default of Pine 4.60 (already out) is to send format=flowed text, so
you will see more flowed text than before. Pine, however, adds these CRs
in its default editor, so you would not have problems if the message was
written with its default editor. Due to the reason why flowed text was
introduced, it is clear that it is going to stay with us (I do have issues
with that format, but I think I am already accepting it as part of my
every day life).

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
>for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
>if it ever were to be accepted).  In any case, the definitive opinion
>will be that of CGF, and if he says that he doesn't care one way or
>another, then my opinion will be just that -- an opinion, and not a
>list custom of any sort.

Well, since you asked, let me put it this way: I would never go out of
my way to send a note specifically telling someone to wrap their text.
My preference, however, would be to see some white space on the right
side of my mail reading window which is about 132 columns in width.  I,
personally, try to format my email to fit within 80 columns and when I
reply to a message I usually reformat it to the same width.  It is
my preference to see wrapping of text in messages to the cygwin lists.

I know all of the yadda yadda obvious stuff about "your preference" "my
preference" "modern mail readers", etc.  However, it has been a
convention to wrap email to somewhere around 80 columns (especially in
technical forums) for years and, personally, when I see email from
someone which just goes on forever without line breaks my first thought
is "probably clueless".

I don't know what Corinna's preferences are here but I wouldn't be
surprised if she agreed with the above sentiments.  Obviously some
people don't care at all about line wrapping but those same people
probably aren't bothered by email which is formatted to fit in 80
columns either.  It boils down to how much credibility you want to have
when you send a message.  When you send your unwrapped lines here you
are potentially not going to get as much attention as you might like.
So, if that doesn't bother you or if that is the effect you are striving
for then this is the maximum badness that will happen...  unless Corinna
disagrees.

Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the
sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> We may agree or disagree about format=flowed sent to this
> list, but we have to agree that what was sent was an e-mail message,
> perfectly valid e-mail message to a mailing list and not a web page to a
> web site.

RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:

There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998
characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the
CRLF.

Wrapping lines at less than 80 characters is the standard accepted way
of sending text email.  It's the least common denominator that's
guaranteed to work everywhere.  It's just like HTML email - can I read
it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my inbox?  Heck no.  Just because you can do
something doesn't mean you should.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Brian Dessent wrote:

:) > We may agree or disagree about format=flowed sent to this list, but
:) > we have to agree that what was sent was an e-mail message, perfectly
:) > valid e-mail message to a mailing list and not a web page to a web
:) > site.
:)
:) RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:
:)
:) There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
:) characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998
:) characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the
:) CRLF.

Yes, I read that, a long time ago, but that means that "it is recommended
that a client sends lines with less that 78 characters, and if you do send
one with more than 78 characters, e.g. 444, you are still in compliance of
the RFC".  That's what the word SHOULD means in that RFC.

:) Wrapping lines at less than 80 characters is the standard accepted way
:) of sending text email.

I do no disagree with you. In fact I do all the time.

:)  It's the least common denominator that's guaranteed to work
:) everywhere.

Not in my PDA. You see, today we have screens that are less than 80
characters wide, and that's the reason why we have flowed format.

:)  It's just like HTML email - can I read it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my
:) inbox?  Heck no.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you
:) should.

Yes, you should read the definition of SHOULD in an RFC, did you do it,
no. Next time look for a better argument to support your point.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> :)  It's just like HTML email - can I read it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my
> :) inbox?  Heck no.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you
> :) should.
> 
> Yes, you should read the definition of SHOULD in an RFC, did you do it,
> no. Next time look for a better argument to support your point.

Nowhere did I claim that SHOULD was equivalent to MUST.  And yes I know
the difference.

My point was simply that if a RFC describes a normative procedure then
that lends weight to the argument that if at all possible, you should do
it that way.  Read my last line again, "Just because you can do
something [send emails with long lines] doesn't mean you should [because
the standards ask that you not]".

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

*** Brian Dessent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote in the cygwin list today:

:) Nowhere did I claim that SHOULD was equivalent to MUST.  And yes I know 
:) the difference.
:) 
:) My point was simply that if a RFC describes a normative procedure then 
:) that lends weight to the argument that if at all possible, you should 
:) do it that way.  Read my last line again, "Just because you can do 
:) something [send emails with long lines] doesn't mean you should 
:) [because the standards ask that you not]".

Hello Brian,

  Yes, you said that. Let me explain why my answer was like it was. It was 
due to the fact that you brought a RFC that does not take any position 
about an issue to support a claim. In my opinion, this is the same as 
saying that Neruda said so. The fact that we do not send lines longer than 
80 characters is a historical fact, already well justified. That the RFC 
says so, is irrelevant, and if your final point is that "not everything 
that can be done should be done", although true is weakened by the text of 
the RFC, which actually allows it. In a general sense I agree with you, in 
this particular case, I don't because clients MUST be prepared to accept 
lines of length up to 998 characters. If they do not spend a few CPU 
cycles to transform this into a readable message is up to the programmer 
of such client.

  All of this means that you can not transform a mail message to a html 
just by adding tags, there must be some processing of the message before 
those tags are added, certainly adding  is a choice, not the 
best as it has been demonstrated.

  Having said all this, I think that the world is moving (slowly) toward 
flowed text (due to the fact that eventually most of "us" will read at 
least part of our e-mail in a PDA like electronic object, but that is 
still several years away), I think that long lines are going to be more 
popular with time. Do I like it? no, but I think it's unavoidable, and we 
should just be tolerant, because it has good benefits when you use the 
right tool to read such messages.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Eduardo Chappa wrote:
I happened to look at this message in Lynx and did not see anything 
bad about it, then it ocurred to me that you were referring to a GUI 
browser. This is the case when you are complaining about how it looks 
in your browser (probably most people browser), but it's not a defect 
of the message, per se (my logic is that it displays well in some 
browsers, bad in others, then the problem is not the message, but the 
browser).
It's not a problem with a browser rather it's a direct result of usage 
of the HTML  tag.  means just that - preformatted. Now the 
person/process that created that html file could have choose to use 
something other than  and the text would wrap approriately in any 
browser.

I do understand your concern, but not everyone presses return at the 
end of a line (e.g. me), and you will have a hard time making people 
do that (I've already written hundreds of messages without pressing 
return at the end of the line).
Precisely as you should IMHO. The responder cannot tell with any degree 
of certainty what the reader will be using to read the message, whether 
that person has his reader maximized, tall and skinny or short and fat. 
It's the reading client who should be responsible for wrapping the text 
to the windows current size. As such you should not be inserting 
artifical "break the line here" returns.

My *editor* has automatic wrapping which inserts those CRs, and if it 
did not have them, you would see the same problem from me. Some 
mailers are configured to send "format=flowed" text, which would 
explain why you receive these long lines. This format is widely 
supported, and is even supported by Pine 4.60.

format=flowed puts the burden on the receiving end, 
Where is should be IMHO (see above)
normally an e-mail program, not a web browser, so if a web browser can 
not cope with this requirement, 
The web browser has no problem coping with this requirement - it's just 
that the web page writer purposely told the web browser not to wrap the 
text between the  and .

the thing I would say is "do not use a web browser, use an e-mail 
program, you are causing your own problem".
I'd say "fix the web page"!
Having said all that, you are free to express your preference on how 
you prefer that messages be sent to the list, but if you find that 
*your* browser is having a problem, I would advise you to use another 
browser to read such messages,
All standards compliant web browsers should render that web page the same.
--
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul  8 18:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
> >for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
> >if it ever were to be accepted).  In any case, the definitive opinion
> >will be that of CGF, and if he says that he doesn't care one way or
> >another, then my opinion will be just that -- an opinion, and not a
> >list custom of any sort.
> 
> Well, since you asked, let me put it this way: I would never go out of
> my way to send a note specifically telling someone to wrap their text.
> My preference, however, would be to see some white space on the right
> side of my mail reading window which is about 132 columns in width.  I,
> personally, try to format my email to fit within 80 columns and when I
> reply to a message I usually reformat it to the same width.  It is
> my preference to see wrapping of text in messages to the cygwin lists.
> 
> I know all of the yadda yadda obvious stuff about "your preference" "my
> preference" "modern mail readers", etc.  However, it has been a
> convention to wrap email to somewhere around 80 columns (especially in
> technical forums) for years and, personally, when I see email from
> someone which just goes on forever without line breaks my first thought
> is "probably clueless".
> 
> I don't know what Corinna's preferences are here but I wouldn't be
> surprised if she agreed with the above sentiments.  Obviously some

Sounds perfectly fine to me. 

My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse.  So my mail reader
is running in an 80 column window.  Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks
drop my attention span to read the whole posting to a minimum.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:
> 
> There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
> characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998
> characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the
> CRLF.

I am not sure this argument argues the point you think it does.

"Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998 characters, and SHOULD
be no more than 78 characters, excluding the CRLF."

I believe that at this point they are talking about the byte stream that
represents the encoded form of the message.

If you are using quoted-printable encoding, then all encoded lines will
be 78 characters or less, and so will be fitting in with the "SHOULD"
specification, i.e. the most conformant.

However, the original form of the message (what the composer sees, and
what the reader should see) can have an arbitrarily large number of
characters between newline characters (or between a newline and the
start or end of the message).

So, if you are using quoted-printable, you can cheerfully do paragraphs
as long as you like, delimited by newline characters, and still be
perfectly within the RFCs.

> Wrapping lines at less than 80 characters is the standard accepted way
> of sending text email.

It may be the "standard Accepted way", but you haven't actually given
any reasons or pointers to reasons.

One could say that you are not actually arguing your case, you're just
saying "that's the way it is, so it must be right".

> It's the least common denominator that's guaranteed to work everywhere.

I disgree.

For example (and this point has already been made) it does not work well
on my PDA which cannot display 80 characters across the width of the
display.

When I read a message which has the additional unnecessary linebreaks, I
get a somewhat jerky reading because every third line is prematurely cut
off.

If the message had been formatted into paragraphs, I would just see the
paragraphs as the author originally wrote them.

And what problems would there be with that flowed message in other
environments?

Every mail reader I have ever seen wraps lines.

Every web browser I have ever seen wraps lines.  The only problem here
is that most archiving software rather unhelpfully mandates that the
browser must not wrap at the right edge of the viewer's window.

Even a dumb mail reader, which does not even decode the quoted-printable
will see lines of 76 or so characters with an "=" sign at the end of
each line.

> It's just like HTML email - can I read it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my
> inbox? Heck no.

I don't think this is valid.

If I sent you a format-flowed message, chances are your mail reader
would wrap the lines and you wouldn't even know.

> Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Agreed.

But conversely, just because something has always been done in a
particular way, doesn't mean that it should never be reviewed.

If there are logical reasons for changing, for example getting a better
match to the conditions of a changed world, without creating backwards-
compatibility problems, then change should be considered.

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
> one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse.  So my mail reader
> is running in an 80 column window.

> Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
> the whole posting to a minimum.

How can you tell if you are reading flowed mail?

Bill

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul  9 10:36, William Blunn wrote:
> > My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
> > one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse.  So my mail reader
> > is running in an 80 column window.
> 
> > Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
> > the whole posting to a minimum.
> 
> How can you tell if you are reading flowed mail?

Easily.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

Christopher Faylor quoted Igor Pechtchanski:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
> >for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
> >if it ever were to be accepted).

"Long command lines will also be wrapped..."

I would contend that there is an issue of scale here.

Detail
--

(Please note all percentage fractions below are just ballpark guess-
timates.)

I would think that you are likely to see an ever-increasing number of
messages which used flowed formatting.

If the web archive system continues to emit web pages using PRE, then
you will see an ever-increasing number of inconveniently-displayed
messages.

So this could easily become a kind of always-in-your-face problem, maybe
causing a problem on, say, 25% of messages.

Occasionally, there will be a long command line where it is important
that there is no line break *if the command line is actually used*.

If we assume that the web archive system allows flowed text to be
wrapped, people reading the message, who don't need to use the command
line will just skip over it. No problem for, say, 99% of the time.

People reading the message, who *do* need to use the command line will
see the command line hit the edge of the window, and continue on the
next line.  Doing copy-and-paste on the entire (line-wrapped) command
line from the browser window will give you a (clipboard) object with
*no* linebreaks in it.  This is true for every browser I have ever seen.

OK so that solves, say, 99% of the remaining 1%.

Then we are down to the remaining 1% of the 1%, i.e. 0.01%.

There will inevitably be some people who are terminally stupid and will
assume that they can use advanced techniques without having acquired the
necessary prerequisite background knowledge. They may either not see the
wrapped portion of the command line, or will not know that you mustn't
press enter/return in the middle of a command line.

(The last part is not completely true, because in certain shells you can
escape newlines and include them in your command line.)

So, yes, you will get a problem 0.01% of the time with my scheme, but
that compares to potentionally getting a problem 25% of the time if
things are left the way they are now.

Think of it this way:  If we had already accepted that the web archive
system wrapped flowed text, and someone came up arguing that it should
not "because it breaks long command lines", would they be given the time
of day?

I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> On Jul  9 10:36, William Blunn wrote:
> > > My mail reader is no "modern" mail reader and I'm not interested to use
> > > one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse.  So my mail reader
> > > is running in an 80 column window.
> > 
> > > Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
> > > the whole posting to a minimum.
> > 
> > How can you tell if you are reading flowed mail?
> 
> Easily.

OK.

When viewing a message in your mail reader, is it immediately obvious to
you whether the message is (a) a flowed-text message or, (b) a message
with additional line breaks every 80 or so characters (note: two
following conditions apply to this question) ?

If you have to issue additional instructions to your mail reader (for
example to display additional information about the message), that that
is not "immediately obvious" and therefore (I contend) does not count.

Also looking at the RFC(2)822 header is considered cheating and does not
count.

What I am trying to get at it, does it make any material difference to
you if the message is flowed or otherwise?

Bill

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul  9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
> I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
> makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
> nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
> display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."

My 2ct are simply this:  If somebody wants to be read, he or she should
stick to the common rules.  If somebody isn't able or willing to learn
these rules, bad luck for him or her.  I'm against pampering clueless
people so that they can lean back and stay clueless.  Call me mean.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully resolve this
> issue once and for all, and so, IMO, belongs on the list rather than in
> private e-mail.

There is a phrase that goes:
 
  "Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send"
  
Now this is just a phrase, and by itself does not have significance.

However it is well understood to be a concise summary of a set of ideas
which are generally accepted to be sound.

If you are developing a system which implements a web-accessible mail
archive where the archive contains messages from many disparate sources,
then I would have thought that this would be one guideline you should be
paying attention to.

It is trivially simple to handle flowed-text messages as well as
messages with additional inexplicable linebreaks.

I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
hard.

It hasn't caused any problems on the systems I set up, and has made
things a lot easier by not having to waste time trying to browbeat users
into doing things in a particular way.

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

William Blunn wrote:

> I believe that at this point they are talking about the byte stream that
> represents the encoded form of the message.
> 
> If you are using quoted-printable encoding, then all encoded lines will
> be 78 characters or less, and so will be fitting in with the "SHOULD"
> specification, i.e. the most conformant.

Right, I understand that as well.

> And what problems would there be with that flowed message in other
> environments?
> 
> Every mail reader I have ever seen wraps lines.
> 
> Every web browser I have ever seen wraps lines.  The only problem here
> is that most archiving software rather unhelpfully mandates that the
> browser must not wrap at the right edge of the viewer's window.

My main problem with it is that it breaks quoting.  When I reply to a
message with no line breaks, my mail program has to either A) pick an
arbitrary margin and reflow the entire message to that margin, adding
">" to the first column of each line, or B) Insert a ">" at the
beginning of the paragraph and just let the long line dangle.  To the
person reading it will not appear correctly quoted (depending on screen
width) because only the first line will have a ">" prepended.  If you
have color highlighting enabled then this is even more apparent.  Option
(A) is leads to the conclusion that having the original message with
line breaks inserted is the best way to go if you expect it to be quoted
as part of a discussion, since that's the format it's going to end up in
for every message in the thread except the original post.  Option (B)
just results in broken quoting, and therefore should be avoided.

> > It's just like HTML email - can I read it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my
> > inbox? Heck no.
> 
> I don't think this is valid.

It's valid in that I can view messages with long lines just fine, I just
don't  like them -- because I'm used to <80 column margins, they read
better on my screen, and I believe that email works better that way. 
This is not a technical statement but rather an opinion.  Likewise I CAN
view HTML emails but I hate receiving them because they come festered
with all sorts of colors and fonts.  (There are further technical
reasons why HTML email is stupid, so in that sense it is more valid than
a simple statement of opinion.)

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> On Jul  9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
> > I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
> > makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
> > nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
> > display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."
> 
> My 2ct are simply this: If somebody wants to be read, he or she should
> stick to the common rules.  If somebody isn't able or willing to learn
> these rules, bad luck for him or her.  I'm against pampering clueless
> people so that they can lean back and stay clueless.  Call me mean.

You're mean :-)

Your rules appear to be arbitrary, and not based on anything relevant.

It would be like saying: You have to begin and end each message with the
word "porcupine", otherwise we won't give you the time of day.

You do also appear to be playing the game of "That's the way it is, get
over it".

OK, if you own a particular domain (and I mean that in the general
dictionary sense of the word), you can dictate any set of rules you
like.

It does appear though that these rules are arbitrary, without benefit,
yet have identifiable problems, and their current sole purpose appears
to be to identify members of a club.

I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of 
the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by default.

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not
a named addressee, please inform us as soon as possible on
+44 118 901 2999 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are
not a named addressee you must not copy, use, disclose, distribute,
print or rely on this e-mail. Any views expressed in this e-mail or any
attachments may not necessarily reflect those of Tao's management.
Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should scan this
e-mail and any attachments for viruses. Tao makes no representation or
warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments.
Please note that for the protection of our business, we may monitor and
read e-mails sent to and from our server(s).

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Dave Korn]

> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
> Sent: 09 July 2004 11:28

> > This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully 
> resolve this
> > issue once and for all, 

  LOL, you haven't been on the internet long have you?

> There is a phrase that goes:
>  
>   "Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send"
>   
> Now this is just a phrase, and by itself does not have significance.
> 
> However it is well understood to be a concise summary of a 
> set of ideas
> which are generally accepted to be sound.
> 
> If you are developing a system which implements a web-accessible mail
> archive where the archive contains messages from many 
> disparate sources,
> then I would have thought that this would be one guideline 
> you should be
> paying attention to.

  There's another phrase that goes:

"If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper with,
edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."


cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

William Blunn wrote:

> I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of 
> the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by default.

I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...

That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.  It's for text
that's been preformatted, with linefeeds and spacing already
determined.  If PRE were to mangle the text by wrapping it at some
margin, it would totally defeat the purpose of the tag.

What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
make the web archives.  It should detect when the message contains no
linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
intended.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Dave Korn]

> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
> Sent: 09 July 2004 12:02

> William Blunn wrote:
> 
> > I only wish that I could go back in time and show the 
> inventor of 
> > the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping 
> by default.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...
> 
> That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.  It's for text
> that's been preformatted, with linefeeds and spacing already
> determined.  If PRE were to mangle the text by wrapping it at some
> margin, it would totally defeat the purpose of the tag.
> 
> What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
> make the web archives.  It should detect when the message contains no
> linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
> normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
> intended.

  Actually it's easier than that, I think.  All it needs to do is grep
through the MIME headers.  If it finds the format-flowed tag, it doesn't
insert .  If it doesn't find it, it does.


cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> "If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
> obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper
> with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."

I wasn't suggesting tampering with them.

Information should be preserved where possible.

My contention is with the process used to emit those archived messages
as web pages.

Wrapping up e-mail in PRE is bogus because flowed text e-mail is not
pre-formatted.

Flowed text e-mail requires one very cheap operation (line wrapping)
before it can be displayed, one which can, in fact, be carried out in
the reader's web browser(!)  So in fact there isn't even any load on the
server(!) Not only that but the reader's web browser knows how wide the
windor is and can wrap it at sensible place (rather than some arbitrary
number of characters based on some anachronistic nonsense).

A goodly fraction of e-mail is now flowed text, and it will only
increase.  Ignoring that is like sticking your head in the sand.

Bill

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul  9 11:46, William Blunn wrote:
> It does appear though that these rules are arbitrary, without benefit,
> yet have identifiable problems, and their current sole purpose appears
> to be to identify members of a club.

If you want to see it that way, fine with me.

Fact is, I dislike when people don't give a damn for existing common
rules which have turned out to work fine for all other people.  Brian
explained some problems fairly well.  In my opinion, people writing a
mail should use their brain instead of relying on automated systems or,
worse, the recipient, to fix their avoidable mess.

Successful communication needs rules.  If somebody doesn't apply to
these rules, which really aren't hard to find or follow, nobody is
forced to read his or her posting, right?  Nobody is forced to read my
postings either.  That's ok.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

Dave Korn wrote:

> > What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
> > make the web archives.  It should detect when the message contains no
> > linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
> > normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
> > intended.
> 
>   Actually it's easier than that, I think.  All it needs to do is grep
> through the MIME headers.  If it finds the format-flowed tag, it doesn't
> insert .  If it doesn't find it, it does.

I think it needs a little more intelligence than that.  A message that
has a Content-Transfer-Encoding of quoted-printable can be both
preformatted with linebreaks, or flowed.  You could even have a mix of
both in the same message.  It all depends on whether each line ends in
'=' or not.  

If you go back and look at William's original message that started all
this, there's no 'flowed' tag at all, just QP-encoding.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:34:01AM +0100, William Blunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Dessent wrote:
> > RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:
> > 
> > There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
> > characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998
> > characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the
> > CRLF.
> 
> I am not sure this argument argues the point you think it does.
> 
> "Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998 characters, and SHOULD
> be no more than 78 characters, excluding the CRLF."
> 
> I believe that at this point they are talking about the byte stream that
> represents the encoded form of the message.
> 
> If you are using quoted-printable encoding, then all encoded lines will
> be 78 characters or less, and so will be fitting in with the "SHOULD"
> specification, i.e. the most conformant.
> 
> However, the original form of the message (what the composer sees, and
> what the reader should see) can have an arbitrarily large number of
> characters between newline characters (or between a newline and the
> start or end of the message).
> 
> So, if you are using quoted-printable, you can cheerfully do paragraphs
> as long as you like, delimited by newline characters, and still be
> perfectly within the RFCs.
> 
> > Wrapping lines at less than 80 characters is the standard accepted way
> > of sending text email.
> 
> It may be the "standard Accepted way", but you haven't actually given
> any reasons or pointers to reasons.
> 
> One could say that you are not actually arguing your case, you're just
> saying "that's the way it is, so it must be right".
> 
> > It's the least common denominator that's guaranteed to work everywhere.
> 
> I disgree.
> 
> For example (and this point has already been made) it does not work well
> on my PDA which cannot display 80 characters across the width of the
> display.
> 
> When I read a message which has the additional unnecessary linebreaks, I
> get a somewhat jerky reading because every third line is prematurely cut
> off.
> 
> If the message had been formatted into paragraphs, I would just see the
> paragraphs as the author originally wrote them.
> 
> And what problems would there be with that flowed message in other
> environments?
> 
> Every mail reader I have ever seen wraps lines.
> 
> Every web browser I have ever seen wraps lines.  The only problem here
> is that most archiving software rather unhelpfully mandates that the
> browser must not wrap at the right edge of the viewer's window.
> 
> Even a dumb mail reader, which does not even decode the quoted-printable
> will see lines of 76 or so characters with an "=" sign at the end of
> each line.
> 
> > It's just like HTML email - can I read it?  Yes.  Do I want it in my
> > inbox? Heck no.
> 
> I don't think this is valid.
> 
> If I sent you a format-flowed message, chances are your mail reader
> would wrap the lines and you wouldn't even know.
> 
> > Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But conversely, just because something has always been done in a
> particular way, doesn't mean that it should never be reviewed.
> 
> If there are logical reasons for changing, for example getting a better
> match to the conditions of a changed world, without creating backwards-
> compatibility problems, then change should be considered.

I want to know how you would format a post like yours above using flowed
format.  I honestly can't think of any way to intersperse quotes and
replies that way without picking a reasonably small width and putting
newlines in.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> > I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of 
> > the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by default.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...

Actually I was serious.

> That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.

I don't think that is the whole point of PRE.

I think the whole point of PRE is that newlines and other whitespace in
the HTML source are interpreted literally.

It appears that the design committee took it a step too far and decided
that newlines in the rendered version of PRE can ONLY appear as a result
of newlines in the source.

This is counter to the normal behaviour nearly everywhere else in which
text wraps when it hits the edge of the medium.

> It's for text that's been preformatted, with linefeeds and spacing
> already determined.  If PRE were to mangle the text by wrapping it at
> some margin, it would totally defeat the purpose of the tag.

If the "pre-formatted" text is too wide to fit the medium, then
*something* has got to give somewhere.

There has got to be *some* behaviour.

Wrapping is a well-established and convenient way of doing this.

Establishing a second (horizontal) scrolling domain is just plain
hostile for text documents.

> What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
> make the web archives.  It should detect when the message contains no
> linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
> normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
> intended.

Sounds good to me, and also pretty much the response from my co-worker
when I described the problem to him.

His response was basically that the system should look at the message it
is attempting to render as HTML and if all sequences of non-newlines are
80 characters or less, then use , and if not, then use alternative
formatting which allows for wrapping, e.g.  with newline processing.

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Jon A. Lambert]

"William Blunn" wrote:
> There is a phrase that goes:
> 
>  "Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send"
>  
> Now this is just a phrase, and by itself does not have significance.

Yeah it appears in RFC1885 as "Be conservative in what you send 
and liberal in what you receive.", just a few paragraphs above where 
it recommends:

"Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line with a 
carriage return."

--
J. Lambert


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Jon A. Lambert]

"Jon A. Lambert" wrote:
> Yeah it appears in RFC1885 

Sorry that's RFC 1855



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> > What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
> > make the web archives.  It should detect when the message contains no
> > linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
> > normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
> > intended.
> 
>   Actually it's easier than that, I think.  All it needs to do is grep
> through the MIME headers.  If it finds the format-flowed tag, it doesn't
> insert .  If it doesn't find it, it does.

As Brian indicated, many mail programs will not include the format-
flowed tag where it would perhaps be appropriate.

Whilst you could take the view that it is their problem, this does not
get the baby bathed.

In the real world, you would probably want to think about having a
heuristic that looked for "lines" longer than, say, 80 characters, and
flag those for wrapping as well.

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian Dessent]

William Blunn wrote:

> > That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.
> 
> I don't think that is the whole point of PRE.
> 
> I think the whole point of PRE is that newlines and other whitespace in
> the HTML source are interpreted literally.
> 
> It appears that the design committee took it a step too far and decided
> that newlines in the rendered version of PRE can ONLY appear as a result
> of newlines in the source.
> 
> This is counter to the normal behaviour nearly everywhere else in which
> text wraps when it hits the edge of the medium.

Sometimes you want to express that something is all on one line. 
Perhaps it's a command, or the ouput of a command.  I'm sure there's
other instances that come up every now and then.  If PRE were to wrap at
the screen margin there'd be no way to do this.  The way I see it the
PRE tag is for saying to the browser, "Hands off.  This text has already
been formatted how I want it and is to appear exactly as follows, and if
that means the screen must scroll if it's too narrow then so be it."  If
it is used inappropriately (such as in the case of the list archives)
and it causes awkward scrolling, then that's really the fault of the
page design or the program that generated it, not of the tag.  If you
want the browser to wrap the text then it's not really preformatted
anymore.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

> Yeah it appears in ... [RFC1855] as "Be conservative in what you send 
> and liberal in what you receive.", just a few paragraphs above where 
> it recommends:
> 
> "Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line with a 
> carriage return."

Limiting line length to fewer than 65 characters is about being
"conservative in what you send".

My contention is about mail archivers being "liberal in what you [they]
receive".

Bill
-- 
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Dave Korn]

> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
> Sent: 09 July 2004 12:30

> > That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.
> 
> I don't think that is the whole point of PRE.
> 
> I think the whole point of PRE is that newlines and other 
> whitespace in
> the HTML source are interpreted literally.

  The whole point of PRE is that whatever is wrapped in it is PREformatted
and MUST NOT BE REFORMATTED.
 
> It appears that the design committee took it a step too far 
> and decided
> that newlines in the rendered version of PRE can ONLY appear 
> as a result
> of newlines in the source.

  Well duh.  Adding formatting chars counts as reformatting it.

> This is counter to the normal behaviour nearly everywhere 
> else in which
> text wraps when it hits the edge of the medium.

  No it doesn't.  Different applications have different behaviours.  Many
have a choice of whether to wrap or not.  And the non-wrapping behaviour is
very intuitively obvious to people, because that's how written words on
paper behave.  If I reduce the width of a page by tearing it in half, the
text doesn't reflow, I just lose half the text off the side.  That's what
I'm used to and that's what I'd call perfectly normal behaviour.

> If the "pre-formatted" text is too wide to fit the medium, then
> *something* has got to give somewhere.

  No, you either truncate or scroll it.  What you DON'T do is reformat the
stuff that is specifically tagged with "do not under any circumstances
reformat"
 
> There has got to be *some* behaviour.

  Yes, but it doesn't *have* to violate the PRE tag.  You just wish it did
because your argument stands or falls on this false dilemma of the excluded
middle.

> Wrapping is a well-established and convenient way of doing this.

  No matter how hard you wish, wrapping text always has and always will
count as reformatting it.  Your complaint appears to be that you believe the
PRE tag ought to have been defined as a meaningless no-op.


cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:

> Christopher Faylor quoted Igor Pechtchanski:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
> > >for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
> > >if it ever were to be accepted).
>
> "Long command lines will also be wrapped..."
>
> I would contend that there is an issue of scale here.
>
> [Some percentage analysis snipped]
>
> People reading the message, who *do* need to use the command line will
> see the command line hit the edge of the window, and continue on the
> next line.  Doing copy-and-paste on the entire (line-wrapped) command
> line from the browser window will give you a (clipboard) object with
> *no* linebreaks in it.  This is true for every browser I have ever seen.
>
> [snip]
>
> There will inevitably be some people who are terminally stupid and will
> assume that they can use advanced techniques without having acquired the
> necessary prerequisite background knowledge. They may either not see the
> wrapped portion of the command line, or will not know that you mustn't
> press enter/return in the middle of a command line.

I think you're making an assumption here about the audience of this list.
Over the years, it seems that most of the time a long command line (or a
series of long command lines) was needed in a message was when a
reasonably clueless person (not even subscribed to the list) requested
help.  So, the proportion of messages with long command lines with respect
to people who are supposed to use those command lines is much higher than
you estimated.

> (The last part is not completely true, because in certain shells you can
> escape newlines and include them in your command line.)

This also assumes that people who are too stupid to know that you can't
press "Enter" in the middle of a command line will know how to quote in
the shell.  Ha!

A couple of other points:

Sometimes it's not even possible to know, visually, whether the command is
ended or continued.

Command lines are just an example.  Another example of when using long
unterminated lines is justified is program output, in particular make or
gcc.  Reading those in flowed format is just excruciating.

> [snip]
>
> Think of it this way:  If we had already accepted that the web archive
> system wrapped flowed text, and someone came up arguing that it should
> not "because it breaks long command lines", would they be given the time
> of day?
>
> I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
> makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
> nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
> display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."

I think you're arguing against yourself here. :-)  The argument above is
that "once something is established and set up, most requests to change it
will be viewed with suspicion, and rarely followed".  But doesn't this
exactly reflect the current situation?

In summary, most mailing lists have netiquette rules and customs.  Where
they come from, be it from historical reasons, from necessity, from a
majority vote by the founders, or just from a whim of the list moderator,
is irrelevant.  Once those rules are established, they are very hard to
change from the outside.  Most subscribers will adhere to those customs.
Those that don't will see an occasional chiding by those who prefer the
customs to be adhered to.  Quoting an old Russian saying, "One doesn't
come to a remote monastery with his own code of rules".  Or, in a more
accepted phrasing, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Brian Dessent wrote:
My main problem with it is that it breaks quoting. When I reply to a 
message with no line breaks, my mail program has to either A) pick an 
arbitrary margin and reflow the entire message to that margin, adding 
">" to the first column of each line, or B) Insert a ">" at the 
beginning of the paragraph and just let the long line dangle. To the 
person reading it will not appear correctly quoted (depending on 
screen width) because only the first line will have a ">" prepended. 
If you have color highlighting enabled then this is even more 
apparent. Option (A) is leads to the conclusion that having the 
original message with line breaks inserted is the best way to go if 
you expect it to be quoted as part of a discussion, since that's the 
format it's going to end up in for every message in the thread except 
the original post. Option (B) just results in broken quoting, and 
therefore should be avoided.
A long time ago I used emacs and it had a mode called gin-mode which 
stood for "Guess INdentation" mode. When faced with a bunch or levels of 
quoting one could use the fill-paragraph and it would fill the paragraph 
wrapping it correctly and properly handling the level of ">" for 
quoting. As I said this was a long time ago. I wonder why current 
software is still having a problem with this...

It's valid in that I can view messages with long lines just fine, I 
just don't like them -- because I'm used to <80 column margins, they 
read better on my screen, and I believe that email works better that way.
If the format is flowing and the HTML email you get is > 80 columns, 
couldn't you just size your window appropriately?!? In fact one might 
argue if you only want 80 characters of display for the message then 
sizing the window such that more than 80 characters of displayable space 
is, err, well a waste of screen real estate!

This is not a technical statement but rather an opinion. Likewise I 
CAN view HTML emails but I hate receiving them because they come 
festered with all sorts of colors and fonts. 
As a person who regularly uses HTML style email and posting (much to 
many peoples chargrin and complaints) I rarely "fester" them with "all" 
sorts of colors and fonts. Other HTML emails and posts I receive are 
also rarely "festered" with all sorts of colors and fonts. Why? Because 
doing so takes time, knowledge and effort and most people simply don't 
take the time, have the knowledge nor can be bothered with the effort 
required. As such I don't think such an argument holds much water. IOW I 
think if people of your opinion see just one bolding they'll call it 
"festered with all sorts of colors and fonts".

--
RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure.
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Dave Korn wrote:
There's another phrase that goes:
"If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral 
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper 
with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."
Never heard that one. Got a reference?
--
Jack Kevorkian for White House physician.
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Fact is, I dislike when people don't give a damn for existing common 
rules which have turned out to work fine for all other people. 
You are ascribing malintent where either ignorance or disagreement may 
be present. You are assuming they don't give a damn instead of the more 
probable "don't understand the issues or difference" or the probable "I 
disagree with your viewpoint regarding the issues you seem to have with 
this". I can also say as easily that format=flowed and even HTML email 
work fine for many people too.

Successful communication needs rules. 
No, not at all. Successful comminication requires effort on both parts 
of the speaker and listener. Stifling rules stilfe communication. Rules 
or requirements should not be forced rather guidelines and conventions 
should merely be stressed - not shoved down other's throats.

If somebody doesn't apply to these rules, which really aren't hard to 
find or follow, nobody is forced to read his or her posting, right? 
Nobody is forced to read my postings either. That's ok.
Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to force them to 
write in a particular style. In the end communication, at least civil 
communication and I'd say any communication that is, in the long term, 
successsful, always requires *compromise* on both parties. Your stated 
opinion, Corina, is uncompromising.
--
REALITY.SYS corrupted: Reboot universe? (Y/N/Q)

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Dave Korn]

> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: 09 July 2004 16:03
 
> Dave Korn wrote:
> 
> > There's another phrase that goes:
> >
> > "If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral 
> > obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and 
> not tamper 
> > with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."
> 
> Never heard that one. Got a reference?


  Sure.  It was said by Dave Korn, July 9th 2004.  I stumbled across it at
this site:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00243.html

but I think you may be able to find it here 

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00271.html

as well.

  HTH!

cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Brian Dessent wrote:
William Blunn wrote:
I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of 
 the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by 
default.
I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap. It's for text 
that's been preformatted, with linefeeds and spacing already 
determined. If PRE were to mangle the text by wrapping it at some 
margin, it would totally defeat the purpose of the tag.

What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to 
make the web archives. It should detect when the message contains no 
linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as 
normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as 
intended.
IOW the  tag is not the appropriate tag for the job in the case of 
a format=flowed message.

--
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

Dave Korn wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria
Sent: 09 July 2004 16:03

Dave Korn wrote:
There's another phrase that goes:
"If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and
not tamper
with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them."
Never heard that one. Got a reference?

Sure. It was said by Dave Korn, July 9th 2004. I stumbled across it at
this site:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00243.html
but I think you may be able to find it here
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00271.html
as well.
HTH!
Cute, but irrelevent.
Or should I take the approach of: "Oh so this is a relatively new 
thing!" ;-)
--
5 days a week my body is a temple. The other two, it's an amusement park.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
>hard.

>On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the
>>sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does now.

sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The mailing
lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.

In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably
actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone meant to
use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to illustrate a
point or even to provide a patch.

So, I am not going to be spending my time hacking on the mailing list
archiving software to add a special exception for cygwin mailing list
denizens who want to forget about hitting enter and then read their
messages on the web.  If the use of  in the archives causes you
problems, then please suffer in silence or find some other archiving
site.  Maybe gmane would work better.

Please do not insinuate that there is some technical or laziness barrier
here.  You are perched precariously on your soapbox and apparently
haven't really given the issue any real contextual thought other than
"It's easy to do.  They should do it."

Is this clear?  There will be no changes to the web site archiving.  So,
if this is what is causing everyone grave concern, then maybe this puts
this issue to rest.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:03:00AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>Think of it this way:  If we had already accepted that the web archive
>system wrapped flowed text, and someone came up arguing that it should
>not "because it breaks long command lines", would they be given the time
>of day?

Let's see.  We're imagining things, are we?

*I* think that if the tables were reversed and someone said that "it
breaks long command lines" I would slap my forehead, say "What was I
thinking?" and personally send the person a check for $372.21.  Then
I would spend all of my available time, ignoring wife, children, and
job (pausing only to pat the dog occasionally) as I struggled to fix
the archiving software.

>I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it
>makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
>nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
>display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."

Postulating how you think people would react and then using their
supposed reaction to bolster your argument really isn't a very
persuasive method for making a point.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

This is a top post, sorry about that, I normally do not do this, but in 
order to show my point I will have to do it.

Corinna,
  I agree with you 99.%, however, there's a consequence to your words 
that you are not seeing, which is this.

  Imagine that I were to read your post on a PDA, the way it would look in 
a 30 columns screen would like shown below, quite unreadable!. Now imagine 
that I connect my PDA to read my e-mail and I see your message, would it 
be useful to me? No, simply because you sent the message in a format that 
seems corrupted in my screen, that's why. In another words your words 
about "being wanted to be read" may back fire at you, in fact I wonder how 
useful is an archive if no one can read it (well this is not quite true, 
but it would be nice to be able to read it as intended in any medium).

  That's why the world is moving toward format=flowed. I encourage you to 
do the same, even if your old and grumpy, or just mean.

  Below is your quoted message
*** Corinna Vinschen
([EMAIL PROTECTED]
tv) wrote in the cygwin...:
On Jul  9 11:03, William
Blunn wrote:
I think not.  I think the
counter argument would be
"Yes we know it
makes the occasional
command-line appear
line-wrapped, but that is a
nano-issue compared to the
downside which is that it will
mess up the
display for all the flowed
messages, which is a far bigger
issue."
My 2ct are simply this:  If
somebody wants to be read, he
or she should
stick to the common rules.
If somebody isn't able or
willing to learn
these rules, bad luck for him
or her.  I'm against pampering
clueless
people so that they can lean
back and stay clueless.  Call
me mean.

Corinna

--
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:

:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
:) >I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't 
:) >hard.
:) 
:) >On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
:) >>Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the 
:) >>sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does 
:) >>now.
:) 
:) sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The 
:) mailing lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.
:) 
:) In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably 
:) actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone meant 
:) to use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to 
:) illustrate a point or even to provide a patch.

If someone sends a 997 characters line, I will see it wrapped in my e-mail 
program, 12 times wrapped. It will not be cut at the width of the screen. 
That's very helpful in my opinion.

If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch, I 
would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file 
directly, so this is not an issue.

On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, it 
won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding  at the end 
of each line, or adding  instead of having empty lines, or things like 
that. Probably does not work out of the box, but it probably can be tuned
to fit most messages, if not all.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[DePriest, Jason R.]

On Friday, July 09, 2004 10:39 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote

> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>> I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
>> hard.
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the
>>> sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does
>>> now. 
> 
> sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The
> mailing lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.
> 
> In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably
> actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone meant
> to use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to
> illustrate a point or even to provide a patch.
> 
> So, I am not going to be spending my time hacking on the mailing list
> archiving software to add a special exception for cygwin mailing list
> denizens who want to forget about hitting enter and then read their
> messages on the web.  If the use of  in the archives causes you
> problems, then please suffer in silence or find some other archiving
> site.  Maybe gmane would work better.
> 
> Please do not insinuate that there is some technical or laziness
> barrier here.  You are perched precariously on your soapbox and
> apparently haven't really given the issue any real contextual thought
> other than "It's easy to do.  They should do it."
> 
> Is this clear?  There will be no changes to the web site archiving. 
> So, if this is what is causing everyone grave concern, then maybe
> this puts this issue to rest.

I always thought that the 'Because We're Just Mean' slogan was a joke.
Well apparently I was wrong.

I cannot believe the level of posturing I am seeing from the
Cygwin-elite.

I live in Memphis, TN, the town where Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot
and killed for trying to change they way things were.

If he and others had simply said, "Blacks and whites are separate but
equal.  That's the way it has always been and that is how it should stay
because it works.  It doesn't matter if true equality has merits and
would benefit some people; everybody else will just have to get over
it," where would The South (that's what it's called down here) be today?

Where would the United States be?

Cygwin is an amazing project.  The tools created by its members make
working in a Windows-centric environment much more bearable.

That does not give some of the project's top members the right to be
complete holier-than-thou ass holes.

I love what Cygwin has enabled me to do since I discovered it a few
years ago.  The community has always been quick to fix issues and keep
the tools up-to-date.  But this feeling that some people's opinions are
golden while others are tin just doesn't make sense.  And it has truly
injured ~my~ opinion of the project as a whole.

It is like when parents who think they know better simply say "because I
said so."

Please at least look into alternatives or "fixing" the system that
started this discussion.

Notice that I have lovingly set my mailer to wrap at 76 characters and I
am using Outlook-QuoteFix for some of the other niceties.  I still have
to manually fix in-line email addresses, though.  I do this to try and
appease the dysfunctional family of the online community of which I
joyfully a member of.

I know you can do 'mean'.  Try 'nice' or at least 'thoughtful and open
minded'.

-Jason

PS - I apologize in advance for the legal disclaimer at the bottom of my
email message.  This is tacked on by our SMTP gateway and I have no
control over it.  I have also put in a request to have the text wrap at
character 72 instead of just a single incredibly long line.
-- 

--
Confidentiality notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged and/or 
confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivery
of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this message
in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from 
your computer.

==


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
>
>:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>:) >I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't 
>:) >hard.
>:) 
>:) >On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>:) >>Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the 
>:) >>sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does 
>:) >>now.
>:) 
>:) sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The 
>:) mailing lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.
>:) 
>:) In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably 
>:) actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone meant 
>:) to use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to 
>:) illustrate a point or even to provide a patch.
>
>If someone sends a 997 characters line, I will see it wrapped in my e-mail 
>program, 12 times wrapped. It will not be cut at the width of the screen. 
>That's very helpful in my opinion.

Maybe you're being purposely obtuse.  I don't know.  My point was that if
I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical mailing list
I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for me.  What it does
to the email reader on your PDA is irrelevant.

>If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch, I 
>would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file 
>directly, so this is not an issue.

The issue is inspecting the patch in the archives.  If you have to
puzzle out where the line breaks actually occur because your web browser
is helpfully wrapping things for you, then the utility of the archives
has been diminished for some people (like me).

>On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, it 
>won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding  at the end 
>of each line, or adding  instead of having empty lines, or things like 
>that. Probably does not work out of the box, but it probably can be tuned
>to fit most messages, if not all.

That's sort of presumptuous, don't you think?  You don't even know how
the archives are generated but you have no qualms about suggesting that
I take my time trying to "fix" something which I've already indicated is
not broken.  Again, I am not going to spend any time trying to set up
the cygwin mailing list as a special case.  There are surely other sites
archiving the mailing list out there somewhere.  Use one of them if the
formatting in the sourceware.org archive offends you.

OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are
welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for
change.  I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience, but I
could be wrong.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:38:11AM -0500, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
>On Friday, July 09, 2004 10:39 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote
>
>> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>>> I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
>>> hard.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
 Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the
 sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does
 now. 
>> 
>> sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The
>> mailing lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.
>> 
>> In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably
>> actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone meant
>> to use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to
>> illustrate a point or even to provide a patch.
>> 
>> So, I am not going to be spending my time hacking on the mailing list
>> archiving software to add a special exception for cygwin mailing list
>> denizens who want to forget about hitting enter and then read their
>> messages on the web.  If the use of  in the archives causes you
>> problems, then please suffer in silence or find some other archiving
>> site.  Maybe gmane would work better.
>> 
>> Please do not insinuate that there is some technical or laziness
>> barrier here.  You are perched precariously on your soapbox and
>> apparently haven't really given the issue any real contextual thought
>> other than "It's easy to do.  They should do it."
>> 
>> Is this clear?  There will be no changes to the web site archiving. 
>> So, if this is what is causing everyone grave concern, then maybe
>> this puts this issue to rest.
>
>I always thought that the 'Because We're Just Mean' slogan was a joke.
>Well apparently I was wrong.
>I cannot believe the level of posturing I am seeing from the
>Cygwin-elite.
>
>I live in Memphis, TN, the town where Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot
>and killed for trying to change they way things were.
>
>If he and others had simply said, "Blacks and whites are separate but
>equal.  That's the way it has always been and that is how it should stay
>because it works.  It doesn't matter if true equality has merits and
>would benefit some people; everybody else will just have to get over
>it," where would The South (that's what it's called down here) be today?
>
>Where would the United States be?

If you really want to continue discussing this, then you really should
stick to the topic rather than making inane "Where would the United
States be?" analogies.

Stick to the point, please.

You do not seem to understand that this entire thread boils down to "We
want cgf to work on the mailing list archiving software".  I am saying
that I have no interest in doing so.  It is as simple as that.

I did state in another message that the current arrangement is site
policy for sourceware.org, anyway, and I suggested a potential method
for getting this changed.  Rather than going on about how shocked and
outraged you are by the awful meanness of people who don't want to spend
lots of time working on mailing list archiving software for you, I think
your ends would be better served by talking to the people who
collectively run the sourceware.org site.  You will have to convince
project leaders from gcc, gdb, eCos, etc.  that changing the way
archiving works is a good idea and, if you want your ideas to really
seem substantive, you might want to research how the current arrangement
works and offer patches or at least details on how things could be
changed.

Of course, even if everyone in the overseers mailing list agrees that it
is a wonderful idea not to use , you'll still have to find one of
them to make the necessary changes.  That could be tricky since we all
have jobs, all contribute heavily to the free software community, and,
perhaps most importantly, presumably are not particularly bothered by
this issue.

Good luck.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:

:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) >*** Christopher Faylor 
:) >([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
:) >
:) >:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
:) >:) >I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it 
:) >:) >wasn't hard.
:) >:)
:) >:) >On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor 
:) >:) >wrote:
:) >:) >>Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the 
:) >:) >>sourceware.org software to wrap in any other fashion than it does 
:) >:) >>now.
:) >:)
:) >:) sourceware.org, the home of cygwin.com, is a technical site.  The 
:) >:) mailing lists that it sponsors are for technical discussions.
:) >:)
:) >:) In these discussions, the formatting of messages could conceivably 
:) >:) actually *mean something*.  It's entirely possible that someone 
:) >:) meant to use 997 characters in one of the lines of their message to 
:) >:) illustrate a point or even to provide a patch.
:) >
:) >If someone sends a 997 characters line, I will see it wrapped in my 
:) >e-mail program, 12 times wrapped. It will not be cut at the width of 
:) >the screen. That's very helpful in my opinion.
:) 
:) Maybe you're being purposely obtuse.  I don't know.  My point was that 
:) if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical 
:) mailing list I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for me.  
:) What it does to the email reader on your PDA is irrelevant.

What you do not understand is that i am talking about a PDA as a screen, 
like the one that you are reading your e-mail message.

Since you wondered, I am not purposely obstuse, I am stating my opinion. 
We just happen to disagree on this point.

:) >If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch, I 
:) >would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file 
:) >directly, so this is not an issue.
:) 
:) The issue is inspecting the patch in the archives.  If you have to 
:) puzzle out where the line breaks actually occur because your web 
:) browser is helpfully wrapping things for you, then the utility of the 
:) archives has been diminished for some people (like me).

I understand, I see how this could be an issue. But adding , as I 
mentioned before fixes this problem.

:) >On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, 
:) >it won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding  at 
:) >the end of each line, or adding  instead of having empty lines, or 
:) >things like that. Probably does not work out of the box, but it 
:) >probably can be tuned to fit most messages, if not all.
:) 
:) That's sort of presumptuous, don't you think?

No.

:)  You don't even know how the archives are generated but you have no 
:) qualms about suggesting that I take my time trying to "fix" something 
:) which I've already indicated is not broken.

I do not need to know how the archives are generated to see that they are 
broken, but if you want to spare your time explaining this to me, I am 
happy to read it.

I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. I refer to 
this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.

:)  Again, I am not going to spend any time trying to set up the cygwin 
:) mailing list as a special case.  There are surely other sites archiving 
:) the mailing list out there somewhere.  Use one of them if the 
:) formatting in the sourceware.org archive offends you.

It has not offended me. Did I say so?

:) OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are 
:) welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for 
:) change.  I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience, but 
:) I could be wrong.

I don't think it's the time to send such request. I will wait a couple of 
years to do so.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>*** Christopher Faylor ...:
>>Maybe you're being purposely obtuse.  I don't know.  My point was that
>>if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical
>>mailing list I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for me.
>>What it does to the email reader on your PDA is irrelevant.
>
>What you do not understand is that i am talking about a PDA as a
>screen, like the one that you are reading your e-mail message.

Rest assured, I know that PDAs have screens.

>>>If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch, I
>>>would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file
>>>directly, so this is not an issue.
>>
>>The issue is inspecting the patch in the archives.  If you have to
>>puzzle out where the line breaks actually occur because your web
>>browser is helpfully wrapping things for you, then the utility of the
>>archives has been diminished for some people (like me).
>
>I understand, I see how this could be an issue.  But adding , as I
>mentioned before fixes this problem.
>
>>>On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, it
>>>won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding  at the
>>>end of each line, or adding  instead of having empty lines, or
>>>things like that.  Probably does not work out of the box, but it
>>>probably can be tuned to fit most messages, if not all.
>>
>>That's sort of presumptuous, don't you think?
>
>No.

I phrased that poorly.  Let me restate.

I think your suggestion was presumptuous.

>>You don't even know how the archives are generated but you have no
>>qualms about suggesting that I take my time trying to "fix" something
>>which I've already indicated is not broken.
>
>I do not need to know how the archives are generated to see that they
>are broken, but if you want to spare your time explaining this to me, I
>am happy to read it.

You're welcome to do this research yourself.  Start by inspecting the
email archives themselves for clues.

Frankly, since I only barely understand what PDAs are and since I really
don't know what this "" stuff is all about, I don't think you'd
want to engage me in a discussion about complicated stuff like mail
archiving.  You'd be spending all of your time explaining stuff to
me.

>I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. I refer to 
>this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.

So, it's "broken" and you want me to "enhance" it so that it won't be
"broken" anymore but you were not suggesting a "fix".  Got it.

>>Again, I am not going to spend any time trying to set up the cygwin
>>mailing list as a special case.  There are surely other sites archiving
>>the mailing list out there somewhere.  Use one of them if the
>>formatting in the sourceware.org archive offends you.
>
>It has not offended me.  Did I say so?

I guess I was inferring from your multiple messages to this thread, and
by your attempts to offer simple suggestions for "enhancing" things,
that you did not like the current state of affairs.  I stand corrected.

>>OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are 
>>welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for 
>>change.  I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience, but 
>>I could be wrong.
>
>I don't think it's the time to send such request.  I will wait a couple
>of years to do so.

Then you are done with this discussion except as a theoretical exercise,
apparently.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:

:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) >*** Christopher Faylor ...:
:) >>Maybe you're being purposely obtuse.  I don't know.  My point was 
:) >>that if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical 
:) >>mailing list I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for 
:) >>me. What it does to the email reader on your PDA is irrelevant.
:) >
:) >What you do not understand is that i am talking about a PDA as a 
:) >screen, like the one that you are reading your e-mail message.
:) 
:) Rest assured, I know that PDAs have screens.

That was not my point. Re read the text, maybe you'll get it the second 
time. If not, go back to high school before you read it for the third 
time, maybe you'll get it at that time. If not, just give up.

:) >>>If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch, 
:) >>>I would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file 
:) >>>directly, so this is not an issue.
:) >>
:) >>The issue is inspecting the patch in the archives.  If you have to 
:) >>puzzle out where the line breaks actually occur because your web 
:) >>browser is helpfully wrapping things for you, then the utility of the 
:) >>archives has been diminished for some people (like me).
:) >
:) >I understand, I see how this could be an issue.  But adding , as I 
:) >mentioned before fixes this problem.
:) >
:) >>>On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, it
:) >>>won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding  at the
:) >>>end of each line, or adding  instead of having empty lines, or
:) >>>things like that.  Probably does not work out of the box, but it
:) >>>probably can be tuned to fit most messages, if not all.
:) >>
:) >>That's sort of presumptuous, don't you think?
:) >
:) >No.
:) 
:) I phrased that poorly.  Let me restate.
:) 
:) I think your suggestion was presumptuous.

That's your opinion, I do not agree with that. I think it's a natural 
opinion.

:) >>You don't even know how the archives are generated but you have no 
:) >>qualms about suggesting that I take my time trying to "fix" something 
:) >>which I've already indicated is not broken.
:) >
:) >I do not need to know how the archives are generated to see that they 
:) >are broken, but if you want to spare your time explaining this to me, 
:) >I am happy to read it.
:) 
:) You're welcome to do this research yourself.  Start by inspecting the 
:) email archives themselves for clues.

No thanks, however I will make a deal with you. If I make this research, 
you do the change in the way the archives are generated, so that all 
people in this thread be happy. Do we have a deal?

:) Frankly, since I only barely understand what PDAs are and since I 
:) really don't know what this "" stuff is all about, I don't think 
:) you'd want to engage me in a discussion about complicated stuff like 
:) mail archiving.  You'd be spending all of your time explaining stuff to 
:) me.

Maybe, maybe not. We can try. It's up to you, not up to me.

:) >I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. I refer 
:) >to this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.
:) 
:) So, it's "broken" and you want me to "enhance" it so that it won't be 
:) "broken" anymore but you were not suggesting a "fix".  Got it.

I said enhance because I do think that it is possible to do better than a 
PRE tag, I said broken because a PRE tag is obviously wrong. You can keep 
it broken, or you can enhance it, up to you. I do not call it "fix" it, 
because it works very well, but it's not ideal.

:) >>Again, I am not going to spend any time trying to set up the cygwin 
:) >>mailing list as a special case.  There are surely other sites 
:) >>archiving the mailing list out there somewhere.  Use one of them if 
:) >>the formatting in the sourceware.org archive offends you.
:) >
:) >It has not offended me.  Did I say so?
:) 
:) I guess I was inferring from your multiple messages to this thread, and 
:) by your attempts to offer simple suggestions for "enhancing" things, 
:) that you did not like the current state of affairs.  I stand corrected.

Yeah, don't draw conclusions like that. You are very good to add words 
where there weren't any.

:) >>OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are 
:) >>welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for 
:) >>change.  I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience, 
:) >>but I could be wrong.
:) >
:) >I don't think it's the time to send such request.  I will wait a couple
:) >of years to do so.
:) 
:) Then you are done with this discussion except as a theoretical exercise,
:) apparently.

I did not say so. You are very good to "infer" INCORRECT opinions out 
loud. You SHOULD not. This is not a theoretical exercise, you can do 
something about it that I can not.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
>
>If I make this research, you do the change in the way the archives are
>generated, so that all people in this thread be happy.  Do we have a
>deal?

Here's how it works: You do the research yourself, then you present your
case where I have previously stated.  My participation is not required.
There are others who know about this and anyone who does reads the
overseers mailing list.

I do not want to be involved in doing this.  I do not have the right to
unilaterally change the mail archiving software on sourceware.org.  I am
not going to be your champion for this policy change for this site.

>:) >>OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are 
>:) >>welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for 
>:) >>change.  I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience, 
>:) >>but I could be wrong.
>:) >
>:) >I don't think it's the time to send such request.  I will wait a couple
>:) >of years to do so.
>:) 
>:) Then you are done with this discussion except as a theoretical exercise,
>:) apparently.
>
>I did not say so. You are very good to "infer" INCORRECT opinions out 
>loud. You SHOULD not. This is not a theoretical exercise, you can do 
>something about it that I can not.

If I am the only one with the power, then I am the one who can tell you
that further discussion will have no practical effect.  You are welcome
to continue to expound on the virtues of "format=flowed" (even if it is
off-topic here).  When you do so, however, it will be merely a
theoretical exercise since there will be no action taken here.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[GARY VANSICKLE]

Responding before I read the whole thread, as I'm sure this gets a whole lot
uglier:

> 
> On Jul  9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
> > I think not.  I think the counter argument would be "Yes we know it 
> > makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but 
> that is a 
> > nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will 
> mess up the 
> > display for all the flowed messages, which is a far bigger issue."
> 
> My 2ct are simply this:  If somebody wants to be read, he or 
> she should stick to the common rules.

"Common rules"?  I prefer to stick to Standards if at all possible.  Like
RFCs and such.

>  If somebody isn't able 
> or willing to learn these rules, bad luck for him or her.  
> I'm against pampering clueless people so that they can lean 
> back and stay clueless.  Call me mean.

You're mean ;-).

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to 
> force them to write in a particular style. In the end 
> communication, at least civil communication and I'd say any 
> communication that is, in the long term, successsful, always 
> requires *compromise* on both parties. Your stated opinion, 
> Corina, is uncompromising.

Hit the bricks DeFaria, we don't need your cool head and clear thinking
'round these parts! ;-)

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Robert McNulty Junior]

I wrote him a letter last week. Get this. He's a Linux user who says Outlook
and outlook express are the worm harvesters.
My mother's old computer used to catch viruses all the time. The Source?
Not Outlook, but Netscape Communicator.
I've had a virus attack once. The I bought Norton Internet Security and all
my problems went away.
I hate Netscape.
I'm trying, however, to catch up on my cygwin updating.
Trying to figure out why GTK is telling me cygX11-6.dll (or something like
that) is missing. I hope we get a new X11 mainatainer soon.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
GARY VANSICKLE
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm
having basic problems with find. Why?")

> Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to
> force them to write in a particular style. In the end
> communication, at least civil communication and I'd say any
> communication that is, in the long term, successsful, always
> requires *compromise* on both parties. Your stated opinion,
> Corina, is uncompromising.

Hit the bricks DeFaria, we don't need your cool head and clear thinking
'round these parts! ;-)

--
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/





--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> >I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. 
> I refer to 
> >this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.
> 
> So, it's "broken" and you want me to "enhance" it so that it 
> won't be "broken" anymore but you were not suggesting a 
> "fix".  Got it.

Can somebody show me where anybody made even the slightest indication that
they want Chris do anything with respect to this?

DISCLAIMER: I am not asking Chris to do anything with respect to this post.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Robert McNulty Junior wrote:

> [snip]
> I'm trying, however, to catch up on my cygwin updating.
> Trying to figure out why GTK is telling me cygX11-6.dll (or something like
> that) is missing. I hope we get a new X11 mainatainer soon.

We do have an X11 maintainer.  However, he's not expecting to find X
problems on the main Cygwin list, so you will have waited quite a bit for
a reply.  I've redirected this to the appropriate list (cygwin-xfree).
Please keep the rest of the discussion on that list.
Igor
P.S. I've also changed the subject for the cygwin-xfree list, as this had
nothing to do with the thread this was in.
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Brian E. Gallew]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
[random, pointless verbiage deleted]
Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Andrew DeFaria]

GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to force them 
to write in a particular style. In the end
communication, at least civil communication and I'd say any 
communication that is, in the long term, successsful, always requires 
*compromise* on both parties. Your stated opinion, Corina, is 
uncompromising.
Hit the bricks DeFaria, we don't need your cool head and clear 
thinking 'round these parts! ;-)
Sorry you feel that way but I'm staying...
(Guess I'm just not up to the Cygwin Meaness Standard :-) )
--
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:

:) > >I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. I refer
:) > >to this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.
:) >
:) > So, it's "broken" and you want me to "enhance" it so that it won't be
:) > "broken" anymore but you were not suggesting a "fix".  Got it.
:)
:) Can somebody show me where anybody made even the slightest indication
:) that they want Chris do anything with respect to this?

That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought this
topic onto himself.



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought this
>topic onto himself.

This statement is disingenuous.  For shame.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
> >That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought 
> >this topic onto himself.
> 
> This statement is disingenuous.  For shame.
> 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  I'm still waiting for somebody, other than you
Chris[1], to tell me who asked you to do anything about anything discussed
here (prior to the replied-to post; I see there was a "deal" subsequently
proposed that did in fact ask for some tit-for-tat action).

[1] This exception is of course an attempt to help prevent this message from
being misinterpreted as a demand for you to do anything.  It is not, and is
not to be misconstrued as such.  Nor, in fact, is it to be construed as a
demand for anybody else to do anything either.  One would hope this would be
clear from the complete lack of demands or implications of demands contained
herin, but when in Rome

Oh, and BTW, whatever anybody wants to convince themselves of, if you're
pointing folks to Google to get info out of your archives (which contain
their own seach feature), your archives are broken.  DISCLAIMER: That was
the Royal "Your", not to be construed as "Chris' archives" etc.

Remember, denial is stage one.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Larry Hall]

At 08:47 PM 7/11/2004, you wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>> >That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought 
>> >this topic onto himself.
>> 
>> This statement is disingenuous.  For shame.
>> 
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not.  I'm still waiting for somebody, other than you
>Chris[1], to tell me who asked you to do anything about anything discussed
>here (prior to the replied-to post; I see there was a "deal" subsequently
>proposed that did in fact ask for some tit-for-tat action).
>
>[1] This exception is of course an attempt to help prevent this message from
>being misinterpreted as a demand for you to do anything.  It is not, and is
>not to be misconstrued as such.  Nor, in fact, is it to be construed as a
>demand for anybody else to do anything either.  One would hope this would be
>clear from the complete lack of demands or implications of demands contained
>herin, but when in Rome
>
>Oh, and BTW, whatever anybody wants to convince themselves of, if you're
>pointing folks to Google to get info out of your archives (which contain
>their own seach feature), your archives are broken.  DISCLAIMER: That was
>the Royal "Your", not to be construed as "Chris' archives" etc.
>
>Remember, denial is stage one.


I'm not sure what you're looking to get from someone responding to your
inquiry but from my perspective, based on what you've said, this just 
prolongs a thread that has drifted beyond the scope of the original 
inquiry and no longer serves a constructive purpose.  If you can succinctly
point to one, then perhaps it's still worthwhile to continue this thread.
Otherwise, let's just let it die and move on.  I think all relevant points
have been made already. 



--
Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> At 08:47 PM 7/11/2004, you wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
> >> >That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. 
> He brought 
> >> >this topic onto himself.
> >> 
> >> This statement is disingenuous.  For shame.
> >> 
> >
> >Perhaps, perhaps not.  I'm still waiting for somebody, other 
> than you 
> >Chris[1], to tell me who asked you to do anything about anything 
> >discussed here (prior to the replied-to post; I see there 
> was a "deal" 
> >subsequently proposed that did in fact ask for some 
> tit-for-tat action).
> >
> >[1] This exception is of course an attempt to help prevent 
> this message 
> >from being misinterpreted as a demand for you to do anything.  It is 
> >not, and is not to be misconstrued as such.  Nor, in fact, 
> is it to be 
> >construed as a demand for anybody else to do anything either.  One 
> >would hope this would be clear from the complete lack of demands or 
> >implications of demands contained herin, but when in Rome
> >
> >Oh, and BTW, whatever anybody wants to convince themselves of, if 
> >you're pointing folks to Google to get info out of your 
> archives (which 
> >contain their own seach feature), your archives are broken.  
> >DISCLAIMER: That was the Royal "Your", not to be construed 
> as "Chris' archives" etc.
> >
> >Remember, denial is stage one.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're looking to get from someone 
> responding to your inquiry

Simply clarification on who did the deed.  If in fact a deed was done.

> but from my perspective, based on 
> what you've said, this just prolongs a thread that has 
> drifted beyond the scope of the original inquiry and no 
> longer serves a constructive purpose.  If you can succinctly 
> point to one, then perhaps it's still worthwhile to continue 
> this thread.

Last I checked we were talking about broken archives, for some definition of
"broken" anyway.  You'll note that my post mentions a shortcoming I've
noticed pertaining to that very subject.

At the same time you are of course right, there is no point in continuing
this thread.  It has served its purpose... if that purpose was to get a
maintainer to quit.

> Otherwise, let's just let it die and move on.  I think all 
> relevant points have been made already. 

Indeed.

"Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economise it." - Mark
Twain

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

I have been doing some reading today, and have come across RFC3676 
(which supersedes RFC2646) which describes format=flowed.

  http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3676.html
A bit of a revelation.
format=flowed wasn't what I thought it might be, but it turned out to be 
much better.

It doesn't look that complicated but it's actually a brilliant piece of 
e-mail engineering.

format=flowed would appear to solve all the issues mentioned in the 
thread earlier this year.

Messages using format=flowed will look just like like 80-column mail to 
all the old curmudgeons.

However when viewed in a reader which understands format=flowed, 
paragraphs will be re-flowed to the width of the reader's window.

Message quoting, using ">" is handled beautifully, with even quoted 
messages being able to be perfectly re-flowed to the reader's window size.

And the best part:
The Cygwin mailing list web archiving system already supports it.
Any message using format=flowed will be emitted beautifully by the web 
archiving system, resulting in lovely flowed paragraphs, including 
quoted messages which will be flowed and presented with quote-bars.

For an example of how format=flowed works with a quoted message, look at 
one of Andrew DeFaria's messages:

   http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00266.html
Andrew appears to have been using Thunderbird 0.7.2.
I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support format=flowed.
I am now using Thunderbird 1.0, which does support format=flowed.
So *this* message should come out nicely for everyone, both in e-mail 
and in the archive, *and* with no extra effort required on my part.

Marvellous!
Bill
--
William Blunn 
Tao, 62/63 Suttons Business Park, Earley, Reading, RG6 1AZ, UK
Tel: +44 845 644 4458, Fax: +44 845 644 4459, Web: http://tao-group.com/
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not
a named addressee, please inform us as soon as possible on
+44 118 901 2999 and then delete the e-mail from your system. If you are
not a named addressee you must not copy, use, disclose, distribute,
print or rely on this e-mail. Any views expressed in this e-mail or any
attachments may not necessarily reflect those of Tao's management.
Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should scan this
e-mail and any attachments for viruses. Tao makes no representation or
warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments.
Please note that for the protection of our business, we may monitor and
read e-mails sent to and from our server(s).
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

[snip]
> I am now using Thunderbird 1.0, which does support format=flowed.
> 
> So *this* message should come out nicely for everyone, both 
> in e-mail and in the archive, *and* with no extra effort 
> required on my part.
> 

Hmmm, sehr intressant.  Flows fine in Outlook 2003, but I don't know if
that's because it supports format=flowed or does its own kooky thing.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[William Blunn]

I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support 
format=flowed.
Turns out this is not entirely true.
Outlook Express *does* have some support for format=flowed, but not as much 
as Thunderbird.

Using the default setting of "Encode Text Using" = "None" (as opposed to 
"quoted-printable"), it will generate messages with format=flowed, and it 
will happily re-flow quoted replies so that they fit into the 78 (or 
whatever) columns.

However, it does not re-flow format=flowed messages for display, which kind 
of wastes half of the point of format=flowed.  I think this may be linked to 
the fact that it doesn't do anything clever with the way is displays quoted 
messages; you just see the original ">" characters.

Thunderbird *does* re-flow format=flowed messages for display, and quoted 
messages are shown using quote bars.

So Outlook Express with the default settings would be list-friendly but not 
user-friendly.

But Thunderbird is list-friendly *and* user-friendly.
(This message will be sent using Outlook Express with the default settings. 
It'll be interesting to see how it appears in the resultant e-mail, and also 
in the list web archive.)

Bill 
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may 
be legally privileged.  If you have received this e-mail and you are not 
a named addressee, please inform us as soon as possible on 
+44 118 901 2999 and then delete the e-mail from your system.  If you 
are not a named addressee you must not copy, use, disclose, distribute, 
print or rely on this e-mail.  Any views expressed in this e-mail or any 
attachments may not necessarily reflect those of Tao's management.  
Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should scan this 
e-mail and any attachments for viruses.  Tao makes no representation or 
warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments.  
Please note that for the protection of our business, we may monitor and 
read e-mails sent to and from our server(s).

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")

[Dave Korn]

> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
> Sent: 13 December 2004 15:11

> > I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support 
> > format=flowed.
> 
> Turns out this is not entirely true.
> 
> Outlook Express *does* have some support for format=flowed, 

 [SNIP long and vastly OT discussion of message posting formats and text
encodings.]

  ISTM that this sort of side-issue is exactly what the talk list was created
for.That means I have to run around clucking and flapping my arms
like a chicken.  Yet again.  

 TITTTL!  TITTTL!
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#TITTTL  


cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Pine maintainer gone (Re: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"))

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Brian E. Gallew wrote:

:) > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) [random, pointless verbiage deleted]
:)
:) Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?

Is this what you call meanness of this list?, you have a lot to learn
about being mean.

In any case, I am not interested in continuing this thread, and for that
matter any thread in this list.

What the developers (of cygwin) understand about e-mail makes me wonder a
lot about the project as a whole and I do not want to be part of it
anymore.

Chris or whoever is in charge, please discontinue me as maintainer of the
Pine program in Cygwin. Look for another sucker (in a good sense). I will
unsubscribe from this list, so don't bother replying, I won't see it.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Extending long threads (was: RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?"))

[GARY VANSICKLE]

> As a person who regularly uses HTML style email and posting 
> (much to many peoples chargrin and complaints) I rarely 
> "fester" them with "all" 
> sorts of colors and fonts. Other HTML emails and posts I 
> receive are also rarely "festered" with all sorts of colors 
> and fonts. Why? Because doing so takes time, knowledge and 
> effort and most people simply don't take the time, have the 
> knowledge nor can be bothered with the effort required. As 
> such I don't think such an argument holds much water. IOW I 
> think if people of your opinion see just one bolding they'll 
> call it "festered with all sorts of colors and fonts".
> 

There's three reasons people knee-jerk against HTML email:

1.  It isn't ASCII (i.e. the "Back in my day a child would open up a gift
and within seconds he'd either burst into flames or lose a limb! That's the
way it was and we liked it!"[1] Defense).
2a.  There isn't an email program alive which can do a "Reply" to an HTML
email properly.
2b. ...especially those which support VT-100 terminals.
3.  The lines are longer than 80 characters ;-).

I fall under category 2a, but my knee isn't jerking: If Outlook didn't
absolutely s*ck *ss at "editing" HTML I wouldn't care.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 
[1] Dana Carvey, Grumpy Old Man, SNL


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/