Subj : Re^2: Nomination
To   : Tim Schattkowsky
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Thu Feb 27 2025 12:36:22

  Re: Re^2: Nomination
  By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Thu Feb 27 2025 03:30 pm

 > //Hello Rob,//
 >
 > on *27.02.2025* at *7:05:46* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
 > to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Nomination"*.
 >
 >  >> this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and a
 >  >> busload if IBMPC ...
 >
 >  RS> Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values?
 >
 > Yes.
 >
 >  RS> Here's the counts as I see for this area currently:
 >
 >  RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC
 >  RS> 70
 >
 >  RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*CP437
 >  RS> 516
 >
 >  RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8
 >  RS> 686
 >
 > Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for
 > actual kludge values may yield different results.
 >
 > Anyway, my search was also wrong. Correct results for my message base
 > (dating back for this area to 2006, cannot say if there are holes in time)
 > are:
 >
 > IBMPC: 2245
 > CP437: 3385

There are other charsets too, most importantly: ASCII

 > Different numbers, but still they show that there is a quite lot of usage of
 > IBMPC and you have to admit, that this echo might attract more than average
 > of CP437 advocates.
 >
 > Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in
 > outgoing messages!

If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what *this* message is reporting! :-)

 > My inner Monk would prefer CP437, but I am coming from industry and have
 > always valued the customer experience more.

It depends on the content of the message. I think "IBMPC" has been determined
to be too vague to be meaningful where as ASCII, CP437, and UTF-8 are very precise.
-- 
Rob Swindell
FTSC Standing Member and stand-in Election Coordinator
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
 * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

.