by Regarding the following statement of mine --
Quote:> [character code 136 deleted, as it could get corrupted in transmission--DS]
wrote --
I'm lucky; all connections outside the USA seem to be eight-bit clean. InQuote:> Was it corrupted when you viewed it?
> (I only ask because you stated "as it could get corrupted", leading me to
> believe it wasn't when you received the transmission)
the USA, however, there are still many seven-bit connections.
Not long ago someone used the (non-ASCII) character code 241 in a post
(to alt.ascii-art, I think) and as we were discussing the merits of
different ways to input the different characters that different systems
assign to the value 241 -- O-grave, n-tilde, plus/minus sign -- one
smart-aleck came out with (paraphrasing here) "Option+n followed by n --
that's a *great* way to type a q! That must be quite a system, the Mac!
Ha, ha, ha!" The high bit had been laid low, chopping 128 off the
character value, so he received 113, an ASCII q.
I sent a table of non-ASCII codes to a pal in Kuwait and it arrived in
fine shape; he sent it to his brother in Minnesota, and it arrived with
everything that wasn't ASCII changed into an exclamation mark.
Those are harmless examples. My comms program mimics a DEC VT-100
terminal, and when it receives a Ctrl-N code it goes into Martian mode.
This used to happen when it received the character value 142 also, and
this value seems to be used in a common Japanese encoding method; if I
got a hit on a Japanese site in an Alta Vista search, BLAM, good-bye
screen display. Eventually I figured out how to make my shell account,
browser, and comms program eight-bit clean so that wouldn't happen, but
some folks aren't as lucky. The values 128 through 159 should not be used
in text on the Internet, period.
Can't accommodate you there, I'm afraid, but I must commend you on yourQuote:> And maybe I like
> scrambling your display. Maybe it gives me a sick sense of satisfaction.
honesty ;-).
Ah, Monaco. My all-time favorite. You said the character was a check markQuote:>> - opened it with some other app. Could you try it? I'd be much obliged.
> Using Monaco in this screen. Using Helvetica in Eudora. Using geneva in
> Claris emailer. (I like a change of scenery.) I can see it fine in any one
> of these. Saved it as text and opened it in simple text and bbedit. Looks
> fine. Popped it over to the ole' x86. Wordperfect saw it fine there also.
> Even read the groups on the x86 (in dos and windows) and saw it fine there.
on your screen. Seein' as how no x86-based text-mode code page has a
check mark, and programs that convert correctly between the DOS and
Windross extended character sets are rare indeed, I hesitate to offer
thanks for, uh, checking.
The DOS and Mac character sets both have radical signs that often get
pressed into service as check marks. Neither one is assigned to the value
136. There is no radical sign or check mark in ISO 8859-1 or the Windross
extension to it.
I would be honored. Doubtless there are conspiracies; there is definitelyQuote:> Maybe it's a * against you!
not a *, but a competition, to see which company can make
character set conversions the most difficult and annoying.
Dunno how I would deal with these characters if I couldn't get out, ride
through pine-scented woods, and listen to the birds every now and then.
Dan Strychalski