Re: About rendering ascii code in a .txt medium

> The ASCII standard prescribes only one media - displayable text that doesn't
> require some decoding process to be rendered (not counting, as I said, for
> machines that must render text to a bitmapped screen).

Please provide a quote from the ascii standard prescribing this one medium, I
don't see it.

> The printout is ASCII art, no argument there.
> 
> The GIF is NOT ascii art.  Why?  Because it can no longer be manipulated as
> ASCII (the printout can't really be manipulated either, but that's because
> it is a physical media that you can hold in your hand).

The gif is also ascii art if it made with ascii code. If the gif is not made
with ascii code, it is not ascii art. In other words , what classifies the gif
is NOT whether it can be easily manipulated or not, what classifies the gif is
whether ascii code is used or not, just like in the printout case.

> Perhaps it's still ASCII art before it's modified, but even if it is, let's
> see you write a convertor program that will render an exactly identical file
> to what the GIF was created from.  I.e. take it from a text file, through
> the GIF format, and back to a text file.  Chances are you can't.

I think it is a simple matter to retrieve the ascii code from a gif by feeding
it into a character recognition program, but that's not the point.

The point is that the ascii standard does not prescribe any medium, let alone
prescribe code retrieval from any specified medium. 

What you said about manipulation and code retrieval does not provide any basis
for classifying pieces as ascii art or not, since it is outside the ascii
standard altogether. 

If you disagree, please post quotes from the ascii standard on prescribed
manipulation and code retrieval methods, I don't see them.

> The ASCII standard doesn't allow for anything except some simple formatting
> codes (like linefeed or horizontal tab).

Please provide a quote from the ascii standard spelling out the prohibition, I
don't see it.

> You look in a standard ASCII chart (which can be found in most any
> programming manual) and show me the codes that allow you to specify a font,
> set the type-size, or change the color of the text.

Font, type-size, color are typographical parameters outside the ascii
standard. Non-inclusion of these typographical parameters do not constitute a
prohibition. On the contrary, the ascii standard is supported by myriads of
typography in the real world.

> Again, it's ASCII art until it's placed into a format that requires
> something more than a plain text viewer to render.  If it contains any
> kind of formatting codes (like HTML tags, or cursor positioning commands),
> then * IT IS NOT ASCII ART, PERIOD. *

By the same token, please prohibit ascii art websites to use the word ascii
art. They violate your definition of ascii art by using html tags.

I have (ironically) suggested that before, but not surprisingly, all of them
still call their html enhanced pieces ascii art, and justifyably so.

> > If the animations are made with ascii code, then that's ascii art, no matter
> > what media (html or otherwise.)
> 
> They are ASCII art only as long as they can be viewed without any kind of
> conversion (other than translation to a machine's native code set, if
> needed).
> 
> It is ASCII art in that sense as long as it can be translated back and forth
> between two code sets without ever losing a single character, and without
> altering the image in the slightest (aside from the fact that each computer
> uses a different font, tho they all have a fixed-spaced font available)

Please provide a quote from the ascii standard stating the above viewing and
translation requirements, I don't see them.
 
> Right, ascii CODE can be used to make these pictures, but once they are
> imported into HTML or Java format, they are no longer ASCII art.  They may
> look like it, but they are not.

Please prohibit the naming our parallel newsgroup alt.ascii-art.animation
I think the name is justified, for the same reason as in the above.
 
> The correct rendition of an ASCII art image (again, as defined by this
> newsgroup and the millions of people who have drawn standard ASCII artwork
> in the past), requires only one thing:
> 
> * A fixed spaced font that contains all of the standard ASCII characters in
>   thier standard order.
> 
> OR
> 
> * A way to view this artwork under the above single criteria

20% of newsreaders are set to proportional, damaging ascii pics. It is
unrealistic to expect everyone of them to change to non-proportional, and over
and above that, the trend goes the other way, i.e. the world goes to proportional.

There are better solutions available, based on html and more advanced
techniques (that will be become imminent only in several years to come or even later.)

> > I think that you are confusing two different things:
> >
> > 1. compatibility of ascii code with most computing platforms
> > 2. correct rendering of ascii pics
> >
> > Compatibility of ascii code is high, close to 100%, no disagreement here. But
> > the topic of this thread is something different, it is the correct rendering
> > of ascii pics. And with regard to that, I guestimated the portability of ascii
> > pics at 80% and declining, due to the world moving to proportional.
> 
> The portability is 100%.

The portability is not 100%, but at around 80% and declining, because 20% of
email and newsreader software is set to proportional and the trend is towards proportional.

> Animation is only ASCII art if it doesn't require the user to load some
> special browser or launch some littlre Java applet or whatever to view the
> animation.
> 
> The best examples are those we see here, when someone draws several images
> spaced a page or so apart.  Those are ASCII art.  All I have to do is page
> down to watch the animation.  Maybe I have to adjust my screen size, but so
> what - I don't have to load some special viewer.

Why is it ascii art if your finger does the paging, and why is it all of a
sudden not ascii art if the paging is automated?

To me, both of them are ascii art, with or without automation.

If the viewer is the stumbling block, please post a quote from the ascii
standard prescribing some viewers and prohibiting others, I don't see any such words.

> > The ascii standard has (very wisely again) refrained from prescribing any
> > typography and myriads and myriads of typography in the real word therefore
> > supports the ascii standard!
>
> You are right to put it this way - any formatting method you want to suggest
> probably supports the ASCII standard.

Aha! That's a key point that I want to get across! The ascii community has
myriads of typography at its disposal!

> > Ensuring that the system font is used in a multi-platform piece, does require
> > a little trickery, i.e. you need inter-activity between the piece and the
> > computer that it happens to run on, to determine and access the system font,
> > that happens to be native on that particular computer.
> > If you don't do this little trickery, then the typographical setting of the
> > email or newsgroup (or any other) software will override the system font.
> 
> You don't need interactivity at all.  What you need is software that isses a
> code specifically ordering the browser to select the default system font.
> It should be the broswers job, not that of the page/cgi/java program, to
> find and use the default system font.

You do need the interactivity because that specific multi-platform piece
may want to use a different font than what is specified in the settings of the
browser software. 

> Since I don't have to, and since the ASCII art form is already compatible
> with every newsreader on the planet (except for those stupid ones that like
> to alter incoming text inappropriately), it isn't needed.

I think you keep missing the message that about 20% of newsreaders see garbage
instead of ascii art. 

> Their setting is non-standard for this newsgroup.  The ironic thing is, by
> changing the font to a fixed-spaced font, many will find it easier to read
> than a porportional font (I prefer fixed-spacing myself as well, except for
> the paper I wrote in school - in those cases a porportional font is used for
> a litle extra finesse).
>
> That's not to say that porportional fonts are bad for newsreading - they
> just aren't the standard to use here.

Unfortunately, this newsgroup is not the center of the universe. On the
contrary, the ascii community is pretty small. The onus is therefore upon us,
and not the rest of the world, to make sure that ascii pics are rendered
correctly in the many media that the rest of the world is using to view ascii
pics (And we need to do so without asking the rest of the world to change
their settings.)
 
> No, we don't turn them off, we help them figure thier newsreader out.  This
> isn't a matter of "it can't be done, sorry, go away".

We don't turn them off with those words, we turn them off because they can't
get their settings right, even after receiving instructions, or they simply
prefer proportional settings for the other stuff that they do.

> Name every benefit you can think of that a porportional font has over a

A discussion would not be productive. Reality is that the world is going
proportional and there are good solutions for protecting ascii pics that we
will need if the portability is going below 50%.

> There is no "universal font".

That has been spelled out too and the discussion was inconclusive because
there was no multi-platform expert at hand. But I did suggest solutions,
including solutions that will work with both proportional and non-proportional
fonts, multi-platform ascii artwork that interactively chooses adequate fonts
on the viewer's computer, etc. (I don't want to repeat the discussion.)

> But, when you start going after porportional fonts, you start restricting
> the user to requiring the exact same font as the artist.  That means no more
> deciding on a good font that is easy to read for text and that renders well
> for ASCII art.

Those are bad solutions, if you can call them solutions at all. There are
better solutions available (I don't want to repeat the discussion.)

> But, if the artist assumes a fixed-spaced font, then there is absolutely no
> question as to what the viewer must use - any fixed spaced font that renders
> standard characters according to the ASCII code set.

That is a good solution that is slowly, but surely becoming a bad solution in
an increasingly proportional world. If the portability of ascii pics has
dropped to 50% (i.e. without asking 50% of the world to change their settings)
then we need different (and good) solutions. (I don't want to repeat the discussion>)

> The ASCII art form prescribes one typography, as you put it - the
> fixed-spaced font.  Plain and simple.

Please provide a quote from the ascii standard showing this prescription, I
don't see it.

> It's more along the lines that other formats (like HTML) support ASCII.
> GIFs support ASCII attachments.  Java supports ASCII.  Most word processors
> support ASCII (indeed, I suppose most are based around the ASCII standard).
> Terminal programs support ASCII.

Aha, that's what I have been saying all along! The decisive point is that the
ascii community has all of these media at its disposal and myriads more!

(Saying that "ascii supports html" is different from "html supports ascii" is
to me irrelevant play of words, decisive is that the ascii community has this
medium (and a myriad others) at its disposal.)

At this point, I wonder what is left to discuss?

If you agree that a myriads of media support ascii, i.e. the ascii community
has therefore a myriads of media at its disposal, then that's really a key
point that I wanted to make.

And if (see further above) you agree that a myriads of typography support
ascii, i.e. the ascii community has a myriads of typography at its disposal,
then that's really the other key point that I wanted to make.

Oh well, the preceding discussions may still remain interesting! :-)

=========================================================
[]   .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)
C      _)
 | ,___|
 |   /
/____\

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

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

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

   .="=.
 _/.-.-.\_ 
( ( o o ) )
 |/  "  \| 
  \'---'/jgs  
  /`"""`\\ 

 _________
|  _____  |\
| |\ ___| | \
| | |   | | |
| | |___| | |
\ | |____\| |
 \|_________|
 Andy Johnson

Make your own ASCII art

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