Re: About rendering ascii code in a .txt medium

> RFC20 is listed in the rfc-data.txt as having the title
> "ASCII format for network interchange", and is the only RFC that I saw 

Even with the additional info, RFC20 could not be located on the IETF website.
But that is to be expected, because if RFC20 were in the database at all, then
typing "RFC20" into the search engine will undoubtly produce the document,
just like the other RFC documents. I am positive now, that RFC20 has been
phased out and has been taken off the public archives on the web.

But the original ascii standard is the authorative document for ascii art
anyway, we are in no way orphans.

> As for the other RFCs I "tossed up", the were SARCASM.

Tossing up irrelevant and phased out RFCs makes you look obtuse indeed.

> The fact remains, regardless of what fonts the artist uses, the viewer will need
> to have those fonts on their computer.

Not if font substitution maps are used.

> |> Some people are beginning to recognize, that perceived limitations are in
> |> reality just barnacles from the past, due to historical and limited
> |> implementations. The ascii standard itself imposes no such limitations!
> Either give us a quote showing that there are no such limitations,
> or concede the argument that the ascii standard limits ascii to the being
> 7 or 8 bit text in the range 0x20 to 0xFF.

The ascii standard does not contain any quotes along the lines of "It is
limited to ..." If you disagree, please post quote, I can't post a quote that
does not exist.

The coding table merely defines ascii code. It does not define any
limitations, no need to concede anything.

The context of this exchange is that ascii code alone is not sufficient for
ascii art. You need to add typographical code, or the artwork won't even
appear! And since you must add code, there is no reason for pulling the plug
so soon, there is no reason to inflict limitions on ourselves.

> Hmm, I seem to have missed these so called "proven facts" - could you repost
> them, along with names and references of who proved them?

All my views were backed up with proven facts, if you disagree, please
identify which view and we can discuss.

> <PITY FOR OBTUSE PETE>
>         He obviously *meant* that his views were opinions, not facts,
>         whereas you seem to be claiming that you views are facts, not opinions.
> </PITY>

Thank you, thank you, for the pity, but I think you need the pity more than
me. But indeed, I claim to state facts.

> |> It is exactly the denial that the other (typographical) code element exist,
> |> that is like putting your head in the sand. It is exactly the other code
> |> element that causes 20% troubles and becoming worse. The ascii code element
> |> itself does not cause any problems.
> You are *partially* right - it is a denial that typographical code is part of
> the ascii character set;  There are no ascii characters to specify any sort
> of typography.  Any type of code that does so specify typography is not ascii.

I have never said that typographical code is part of the ascii character set.

What I said was that typographical code (such as font) is part and parcel of
ascii art. Big difference! 

Try to apply the generic ascii knowledge base to ascii art specifically, or
alternatively, reread my articles carefully, I have stated these things very
explicitly, very clearly and quite often as well.

> |> Well, what shall I say, you are probably not in a consumer friendly business,
> |> or else you would not ask the viewer to spend any effort, and if they refuse
> |> to do so, call them names!
> He's not the one trying to promote some new definition of an old term, so he's
> allowed to call lazy people "lazy" if he wants to.

Well, the point is that it is utterly inconsequential whether 1 person asks
the other 10,000 persons to spend effort to view their work. The ascii artist
is still lucky that that represents only 20% of the net (prorated of course.)
But the situation is worsening.

> How is "ASCII alone ... is capable of displaying some very good artwork ..."
> pulling the plug on ASCII's capabilities?

Because it can do even more, much more!

> You must be thinking of something other than ascii

I am thinking of ascii art

> - simply by writing his message
> to usenet is a use of ascii.  What is it that you want him [and the rest of us, I
> assume] to do with ascii that we're not already doing?

Please reread my articles carefully, I have said things again and again and
again, such as me not wanting to do anyone to do anything, mainstream will
take care of all those developments!

(I have indeed invited him to be a pioneer, but that's something different)

=========================================================
[]   .oo     Visit the Gallery of the 'steins!         []
[]  (  -)   http://www3.sympatico.ca/petecasso/        []
[]   " "   Frogstein, who has a point behind his eyes  []
=========================================================

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

 ___________
|  _______  |
| |       | |
| |       | |
| |       | |
| |_______| |
|___________|

//O\\

|\/\/\/|
|      |
|      |
| (o)(o)
C      _)
 | ,___|
 |   /
/____\

|HHHHH/"\"\HHHHHHH|
|HH`\|_.-)'|/'dP,H|
|Hb.`\\_/_//'.oddH|
|HHHb|`.\/\,'|HHHH|
|HHHHHb/\/\/|HHHHH|
|"""""""""""""""""|
| |"" /\ \  / |"" |
| |__/--\ \/  __| |

  _________
 /___   ___\
//@@@\ /@@@\\
\\@@@/ \@@@//
 \___ " ___/
    | - |
     \_/  jrjc

  ______
 /|_||_\`.__
(   _    _ _\
=`-(_)--(_)-'
         hjw

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.