//Hello Michiel,//
on *26.02.2025* at *18:34:38* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Nomination"*.
MvdV> Hello Tim,
MvdV> On Wednesday February 26 2025 16:49, you wrote to Fabio Bizzi:
@MSGID: 2:2/29 37c543d1
@REPLY: 2:335/364.3 67a3a78d
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
MvdV> ^^^^^
MvdV> From FTS-5003:
MvdV> 5. Obsolete indentifiers
MvdV> ------------------------
MvdV> These indentifiers must not be used when creating new messages.
MvdV> The following only applies to processing messages that were
MvdV> created using old software.
MvdV> Since the "IBMPC" identifier, initially used to indicate IBM
MvdV> codepage 437, eventually evolved into identifying "any IBM
MvdV> codepage", there exists in some implementations an additional
MvdV> control line, "CODEPAGE", identifying the messages codepage:
MvdV> "^ACODEPAGE: xxx
MvdV> This use is deprecated in favour of the "CPxxx" identifiers
MvdV> defined above. If found in incoming messages, however, it should
MvdV> be used as an override of the "CHRS: IBMPC" identifier.
MvdV> Note the words "MUST NOT" in the first line of this paragraph. So when
MvdV> will you make your software FS-5003 complient?
Yes. I think we had this before. The failure of the FTSC to update the standards to reflect actual practice is indeed notable.
The FTSC was meant to describe and guide actual practice. Just by looking at this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and a busload if IBMPC ... and for a reason: Most existing infrastructure is expecting IBMPC. Thus, while WP has probably one of the broadest and most elaborate implementations of 5003 including anything from UTF-8 to krillic charsets, it does intentionally use a compatible setting for codepage 437 to get the users the best possible interoperability.
In science, things are simple: If there are two options, you just think about what happens when you choose either one and go with the better. Since in the best case, using CP437 makes the software behave as it would for IBMPC and in the worst case it may be unable to process the charset properly, the choice is easy.
The block warden manner in which breaking the existing infrastructure for no good reason is requested by some people here to feel mighty and important does in no way contribute to the technical advancement of Fidonet. One might call THAT pig-headed.
Also, I am baffled in general by some peoples behavior here. I would seriously say that it is probably hard to find people nowadays who still work on Fidonet software. WinPoint is there since 1996. And I do think some of you guys need serious help ...
Regards,
Tim
PS: Of course I continue to use my own Point software to write even as a Node. I have seen the usual editors. Enjoy ... Also, I dislike the bad CHARSET support in many of those things from the past millennium :)
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)