Re: About rendering ascii code in a .txt medium

> > Because of that, and if I understand your writing further down correctly, you
> > contemplated to call the computer code the original of the ascii art and all
> > renderings are then copies of that original.
> 
> Which by the definition of "reproduction", is correct.

(Actually, you continued the discussion ...)

By the same token, you would define a .txt rendering a reproduction also, I am
not sure I agree with that. 

I myself have called them ascii art in gif format, ascii art in txt format,
etc which is a lot simpler. No special designation for a gif rendering as an
original or reproduction, no special designation for a txt rendering as an
original or reproduction, etc.
 
> The RFC's are what *DEFINE* the standards in use today for the net, not the
> other way around.  The RFC's do not simply follow some accepted standard or
> offer explainations for the standard.  They *DEFINE* it.

Well, defining what standards to use is a standard in itself. It is quite
common practice for standards to refer to other standards.

> (perhaps as defined by RFC-20?  I'd like to see it just for the purpose of
> seeing it).

The RFC 20 tossed up by someone in this thread is probably an invalid trial
balloon. It can't be found in the IETF archives, and the other RFCs tossed up
by that same someone are irrelevant to this discussion.

Just to confirm, the good old ascii standard is still the authorative document
for ascii art.

> Just because there is a standard, with certain limitations, doesn't mean
> that said standard won't become popular or even commonplace.

I did not say that in this context. I said in the context of the ascii
standard that it does not contain any of the prohibitions, etc that you tossed
up (and that it indeed became popular exactly because of the lack of those
prohibitions, etc)

> > Anyway, I have asked several times for quotes, but you posted no quotes sofar.
> 
> And I have asked you to post quotes refuting these observations, which you
> have so far REFUSED to (by stating the burden of proof incorrectly lies on
> me and others, when you are the one proposing things that are outside our
> capabilities or purposes).

It is not possible to post quotes on prohibitions, etc that do not exist. So
the point is that I don't refuse, the point is that I can't post quotes that
do not exist.

It is you who tossed up prohibitions, etc so the onus is on you to post those
pertinent quotes. This should be well within your capabilities if you did not
grab those prohibitions, etc out of the blue sky.

The motivation for asking for the quotes is not to aggravate you. It is a way
for saying: don't take my word for it, but to look for yourself and convince
yourself that those prohibitions, etc are not contained in the ascii standard
at all.

Now that you can't show that the ascii standard contain those prohibitions,
etc you want to go by common sense. 

The fallacy to go by common sense it that everyone has a different definition
on what common sense is. That's exactly the reason for having a standard.
 
> By this I meant that a text editor is more or less the least amount of
> software you need to create ASCII art and plaintext.

True, but the ascii standard does not prohibit you from using more
sophisticated tools either. 

The other extreme is to use no software at all and render ascii art by hand,
the ascii standard does not prohibit you from doing that either, ha ha ha! I
have (ironically) suggested that kind of extreme self-limiting behaviour
before! (Just to get the point across at that time.)
 
> > Now, where do you draw the line with adding code? My answer is: draw no line.
> 
> You draw the line when you add any non-ASCII code to the artwork that alters
> the appearence of the artwork itself.  I don't see a problem with adding a
> clear-screen code to the top of a piece of artwork, for example.  But,
> because of brain-dead software that runs half of the Internet, that code
> would probably not make it through anyways.

If you don't add any non-ascii code (in the form of typographical code,) the
ascii artwork won't even appear! That's not nitpicking, that's a fact!

And the brain-dead software is, like it or not, what enables you to view ascii
art across the net with a good portability of 80% right now.

> This is especially the concern for ASCII art.  Again, by extension (of those
> graphs you posted for examaple), ASCII art as a 100% portable media would be
> phased out.

You quoted me a couple of times in the above and in so doing, overstated what
I said. Referring to the above quote for example, what I said was that ascii
art in a .txt medium (I emphasize "in a .txt medium") is only 80% portable at
the moment and declining.

But I also said that ascii art can survive in other media, whose portability
are at a low 20% (or even lower) right now, but improving with time. Wow! That
was a central point!

> I thought you said there was ZERO EFFORT?  Doesn't the recipient have to
> install something?  Unless you're proposing HTML (which you seem to lean
> away from I've noticed), you're creating a problem by requireing yet another
> piece of software to be installed on 100% of the machines and all of the
> dozens of platforms out there, for all who want to see your new form of
> artwork.

Yes, zero effort indeed. The recipient uses Internet software that s/he uses
for all of his/her activities on the net anyway (i.e. by the time this rolls
around as you put it further down,) and thus, zero effort for ascii art.

And no, I am still html friendly, although I personally have already left it
behind me in favor of other, even more capable media!

> HTML is already very widespread, and perhaps by the time this time rolls
> arond, news and email readers will have the capability as standard (Even the
> version of Pine I use now handles HTML just fine).

Good, good, and the time this rolls around for the majority of the net is at
least several years from now on, no disagreement here.

> But there is simply NO WAY for this to happen, now or in the future, unless

I thought that you yourself suggested that the simple <pre> and </pre> tags
already solve nearly all of the complications that you identified?

> What you are proposing (letting the artist specify fonts and color, and so
> on) does add stuff to the picture, in the form of font tags, color codes, or
> whatever the format in question is using.  When that code reacies it's
> target (the recipient), it will be displayed, and will be displayed right
> only if the recipient has everything the artist has, in the way of
> typographical capabilities (this especially includes specific fonts at
> specific sizes).

Well, a skillful artist will not use obscure fonts or obscure anything, you
can always produce bad things with good tools.

Nevertheless, for other reasons I have guestimated the portability of ascii
art in a .html medium at a low 20% right now, but improving.

> Your views do not stand in this newsgroup.

I contend they do, I am slowly, but surely opening eyes! 

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!

Of course, as always in moving forward, there are people wanting to maintain
the status quo. The best indicator that I am opening eyes, is that the
adrenaline is running high in those status quo guys! ;-)

> Your views mave no merit at all, if you can't back them with proven facts or
> quotations.

My views do have merit, because I did back them up with proven facts and
clearly observable trends. (Although I indeed can't post quotes that don't
exist ;-)) 

I even have a website where I have practised those views. Of course, the
advanced implementations have only the 20% portability that I was talking
about, for example, you do need a graphical browser, but the portability will
improve :-)))

> At least I've backed what I have to say with proven facts, and a few

No, you did not back up the prohibitions, etc that you tossed up, you did not
post quotes on the prohibitions, etc from the ascii standard!

> My viewes aren't necessarily facts either,

No, they aren't. In particular, there are no such prohibitions, etc in the
ascii standard, my friend!

> > Aha, almost true, only that it's not me, but mainstream development that will
> > take care that users will increasingly use html aware software running on html
> > capable platforms. And that in turn will increase the portability of ascii
> > pics in a .html medium.
> 
> Yeah, but at this exact moment, it is *YOU* who are prescribing that the
> ASCII community try to take the leap forward now, by using HTML-aware
> newsreaders and Email programs.

Not true about me prescribing anything, read my quote in the above carefully.
I have explicitly said that mainstream development will take care of that, not
me, and mainstream will develop at its own pace, not set by me either. 

(Gosh, how could it possibly be that I have such great influence? Even my
pathologically enlarged ego does not allow me to believe THAT!)

> If my guess is right, you are actually poposing to simply take advantage of
> the mainstream developments.  This isn't piggybacking.

Alright, use a different name if you like, I happen to use the name
piggybacking. But I don't discuss names, I discuss concepts. What I meant with
piggybacking is for example using the .html medium for protecting ascii art,
whether you want to call that taking advantage of mainstream developments or
otherwise (OK, what short name would you like to use?)

> When that code reaches the recipient, it is displayed using his or her
> default settings (even if they are wrong).

Yes, and these days, that's wrong 20% of the time and getting worse. I wonder,
sometimes you recognize this central issue, sometimes you want to discuss it
away! See the following quote.

> ASCII art still requires only CODE element.

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.

> Yes we are, and I'll just end this little bit by stating this (you already
> disagree, but I refuse to argue this point anymore):
> If the user doesn't know how to change thier settings appropriately for 

(Actuality, you continued to discuss ...)

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!
 
> You know it's capabilities all right, but you are confusing them with the
> capabilities that other media (such as HTML) offer.  ASCII alone, without
> all the markup tags and crap, is capable of displaying some very good
> artwork, and conveying most any idea you want, but not much beyond that.

Almost right, but I am not confusing anything, I just don't pull the plug that
quickly on ascii's capabilities.

> And it is that low amount of capability (compared to other media) that

Just don't pull the plug that quickly, and you too will see ascii's tremendous
capabilities. Try it, you won't be disappointed as a pioneer, I can assure you!

=========================================================
[]   .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:

   _______
 /` _____ `\;,
/__(^===^)__\';,
  /  :::  \   ,;
 |   :::   | ,;'
 '._______.'`jgs

 _  _
(o)(o)--.
 \../ (  )hjw
 m\/m--m'`--.

  _  _
/` \/ `\_  _
\     /` \/ `\
 '.  .\      /
   \/  '.  .'
         \/jgs

 __ .  . __
(o.\ \/ /.o)
 \__\/\/__/
 /O /==\ O\
(;O/ \/ \O;)

   _______
  |.-----.|
  || jgs ||
  ||_   _||
  `--)-(--`
 __[=== o]___
|:::::::::::|\
`-=========-`() 

     ,sSSs
   ,SSSS_/ ,_
   sS/`))\//
  sS//|_(_/      _,
  SS\\\  `""-.-'` /
sSS` jgs-==-'`'-._\

Make your own ASCII art

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