On Jun 5, 20:55, Hans Franke wrote:
> Well, back to our theme:
> Pete, I realy agree to your idea about a sensible editor, just
> we are living in a real world, where real software is to be used.
> And since this is supposed to be an open standard, a sensible
> editior can't be assumed... Even if we would try, I doubt that
> such a thing is available on every obscure home computer system.
> Even chances for a simple text editor can be bad. So including
> binary as default is a bad idea
:-) I only included it because there appeared to some strong opposition to
"wasted" bytes. What I did was bolt tags onto the binary, deliberately
producing what Tony accurately described as the worst of both worlds.
Actually, if you look at the examples, the ASCII form in the tags, at
least, typically takes just about the same space as the binary would, so
there's absolutely no reason to use anything but ASCII.
> - I would even go further and
> restrict all markup specific parts for only using the characters
> A-Z, 0-9 and some well defined (read only the absolute necersary
> minimum) characters.
Thereby avoiding 99.9% of the problems raised by incompatible character set
representations. Agreed.
> Let'S just assume we would need three times - oh, well lets
> say four times the space to encode so an Apple Disk will
> need a whooping 600 kb
That's only a thousand on a CD ;-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 16:15:35 BST