Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

"Gerhard Fiedler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news49eu9j5vhb4$.(E-Mail Removed)...
> Rambo wrote:
>
>>> It should be rather simple to find RFC3676 that defines flowed format
>>> for text/plain. I posted a link earlier in this thread. (But of
>>> course that was a month ago... and attention spans vary
>>>
>> It's written in this rfc:
>> The Text/Plain media type is the lowest common denominator of
>> Internet email, with lines of no more than 998 characters (by
>> convention usually no more than 78), and where the carriage-return
>> and line-feed (CRLF) sequence represents a line break (see [MIME-IMT]
>> and [MSG-FMT]).
>
> Ah, yes, of course... This is the description of "The Problem" (that's
> the title of the section that starts with this paragraph), and only
> three paragraphs later is written:
>
> "Some interoperability problems have been observed with this format:"
>
> Which is exactly why this RFC exists. Reading it before trying to
> discuss it could help

Yes , but more interoperability problems have been observed with others
formats. (truncation is the most important one)

ray wrote:

> "Gerhard Fiedler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news49eu9j5vhb4$.(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Rambo wrote:
>>
>>>> It should be rather simple to find RFC3676 that defines flowed format
>>>> for text/plain. I posted a link earlier in this thread. (But of
>>>> course that was a month ago... and attention spans vary
>>>>
>>> It's written in this rfc:
>>> The Text/Plain media type is the lowest common denominator of
>>> Internet email, with lines of no more than 998 characters (by
>>> convention usually no more than 78), and where the carriage-return
>>> and line-feed (CRLF) sequence represents a line break (see [MIME-IMT]
>>> and [MSG-FMT]).
>>
>> Ah, yes, of course... This is the description of "The Problem" (that's
>> the title of the section that starts with this paragraph), and only
>> three paragraphs later is written:
>>
>> "Some interoperability problems have been observed with this format:"
>>
>> Which is exactly why this RFC exists. Reading it before trying to
>> discuss it could help
>
> Yes , but more interoperability problems have been observed with others
> formats. (truncation is the most important one)

No contest. I didn't say that this was a good or even useful RFC -- just
that there /is/ an RFC about a flowed format.

The poster to which I responded originally (Les Cargill) argued that
there was "the RFC" stating that everything flowed format is "wrong". My
point was that there are many RFCs, and even some that talk about flowed
formats.

So if someone wants to make a point about fixed line length format, he
has to make it on his own -- just hinting on "the RFC" doesn't cut it.
And he should better understand the issues listed in RFC3676 before he
does.

Besides, the lowest common denominator for communication is (informal)
gestures. Everything else needs a lot of agreements about standards, of
which the agreements necessary to get to a flowed format may really be
minor.

I agree that it's not (yet) common, but I think it should be. Fixed
length format is definitely a pain (just look at the mess in some of the
heavily quoted messages in this thread) -- and I do like line lengths
around 80 to 100 characters. Imagine someone with other preferences.

Gerhard

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> ray wrote:
>
>> "Gerhard Fiedler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news49eu9j5vhb4$.(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Rambo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It should be rather simple to find RFC3676 that defines flowed format
>>>>> for text/plain. I posted a link earlier in this thread. (But of
>>>>> course that was a month ago... and attention spans vary
>>>>>
>>>> It's written in this rfc:
>>>> The Text/Plain media type is the lowest common denominator of
>>>> Internet email, with lines of no more than 998 characters (by
>>>> convention usually no more than 78), and where the carriage-return
>>>> and line-feed (CRLF) sequence represents a line break (see [MIME-IMT]
>>>> and [MSG-FMT]).
>>> Ah, yes, of course... This is the description of "The Problem" (that's
>>> the title of the section that starts with this paragraph), and only
>>> three paragraphs later is written:
>>>
>>> "Some interoperability problems have been observed with this format:"
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why this RFC exists. Reading it before trying to
>>> discuss it could help
>> Yes , but more interoperability problems have been observed with others
>> formats. (truncation is the most important one)
>
> No contest. I didn't say that this was a good or even useful RFC -- just
> that there /is/ an RFC about a flowed format.
>
> The poster to which I responded originally (Les Cargill) argued that
> there was "the RFC" stating that everything flowed format is "wrong". My
> point was that there are many RFCs, and even some that talk about flowed
> formats.
>
> So if someone wants to make a point about fixed line length format, he
> has to make it on his own -- just hinting on "the RFC" doesn't cut it.
> And he should better understand the issues listed in RFC3676 before he
> does.
>
> Besides, the lowest common denominator for communication is (informal)
> gestures. Everything else needs a lot of agreements about standards, of
> which the agreements necessary to get to a flowed format may really be
> minor.
>
> I agree that it's not (yet) common, but I think it should be. Fixed
> length format is definitely a pain (just look at the mess in some of the
> heavily quoted messages in this thread) -- and I do like line lengths
> around 80 to 100 characters. Imagine someone with other preferences.
>

I agree with your well explained view of the problem.

"Rambo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49b5979e$0$334$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> "Gerhard Fiedler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news49eu9j5vhb4$.(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Rambo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It should be rather simple to find RFC3676 that defines flowed format
>>>>>> for text/plain. I posted a link earlier in this thread. (But of
>>>>>> course that was a month ago... and attention spans vary
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's written in this rfc:
>>>>> The Text/Plain media type is the lowest common denominator of
>>>>> Internet email, with lines of no more than 998 characters (by
>>>>> convention usually no more than 78), and where the carriage-return
>>>>> and line-feed (CRLF) sequence represents a line break (see
>>>>> [MIME-IMT]
>>>>> and [MSG-FMT]).
>>>> Ah, yes, of course... This is the description of "The Problem" (that's
>>>> the title of the section that starts with this paragraph), and only
>>>> three paragraphs later is written:
>>>>
>>>> "Some interoperability problems have been observed with this format:"
>>>>
>>>> Which is exactly why this RFC exists. Reading it before trying to
>>>> discuss it could help
>>> Yes , but more interoperability problems have been observed with others
>>> formats. (truncation is the most important one)
>>
>> No contest. I didn't say that this was a good or even useful RFC -- just
>> that there /is/ an RFC about a flowed format. The poster to which I
>> responded originally (Les Cargill) argued that
>> there was "the RFC" stating that everything flowed format is "wrong". My
>> point was that there are many RFCs, and even some that talk about flowed
>> formats.
>>
>> So if someone wants to make a point about fixed line length format, he
>> has to make it on his own -- just hinting on "the RFC" doesn't cut it.
>> And he should better understand the issues listed in RFC3676 before he
>> does.
>>
>> Besides, the lowest common denominator for communication is (informal)
>> gestures. Everything else needs a lot of agreements about standards, of
>> which the agreements necessary to get to a flowed format may really be
>> minor. I agree that it's not (yet) common, but I think it should be.
>> Fixed
>> length format is definitely a pain (just look at the mess in some of the
>> heavily quoted messages in this thread) -- and I do like line lengths
>> around 80 to 100 characters. Imagine someone with other preferences.
>>
>
> I agree with your well explained view of the problem.
Me too. - may i suggest 20 characters length lines ? :-) lol