Subj : Re^3: Nomination To : Rob Swindell From : Tim Schattkowsky Date : Fri Feb 28 2025 19:14:52 //Hello Rob,// on *27.02.2025* at *20:36:22* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC* to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re^2: Nomination"*. RS> Re: Re^2: Nomination RS> By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Thu Feb 27 2025 03:30 pm >> Hello Rob, RS> > >> on 27.02.2025 at 7:05:46 You wrote in Area FTSC_PUBLIC to Tim Schattkowsky >> about "Re: Nomination". RS> > >> >> this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and >> a >> >> busload if IBMPC ... RS> > >> RS> Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values? RS> > >> Yes. RS> > >> RS> Here's the counts as I see for this area currently: RS> > >> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC >> RS> 70 RS> > >> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*CP437 >> RS> 516 RS> > >> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8 >> RS> 686 RS> > >> Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for >> actual kludge values may yield different results. RS> > >> 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: RS> > >> IBMPC: 2245 >> CP437: 3385 RS> 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. RS> > >> Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in >> outgoing messages! RS> If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the RS> "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what this message RS> is reporting! :-) Generally, this is more about the system capabilites than the actual message. So even if most messages from a user of a certain system are plain ASCII, there may be all thos borders and ASCII art that are sometimes also used that need a clear definition beyond ASCII. Regards, Tim --- WinPoint 415.0 * Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29) .