Microsoft might change the cadence of its Windows 10 feature rollouts starting next year in order to help prioritize Windows 10X development.

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken Blake wrote:
On 7/21/2020 7:24 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2020-07-21, Sjouke Burry wrote:
Idiot.
HTML has no legitimate place on Usenet.


I agree.


Neither do bullet points.


But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?

They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.


Yes.


I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)


I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.


. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.


Yes.



--
Ken

Wolffan wrote:

apparently ‘curly quotes’ can cause conniptions
This is why they complain, because real newreaders that follow the spec
can renders your messages poorly making it difficult to read. Just as
using HTML in a plain text medium:

html
head

meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
/head
body text="#008000" bgcolor="#faf0e6"
pNot Official from Microsoft but May Jo Foley seems to suggest
this:/p
pa class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-plans-for-single-screen-windows-10x-rollout-in-spring-2021-dual-screen-in-spring-2022/"<https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-plans-for-single-screen-windows-10x-rollout-in-spring-2021-dual-screen-in-spring-2022/>/a/p
pMary claims to have connections with Microsoft Internal Sources.Â
Nothing from Thurrott yet but it's too early.br
/p
pbr/p
....


Everyone has a right to be a ass, just don't be surprised if you're
kill-filed and ignored.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

unicode is the current standard, which supports all characters. ascii
does not.

And what does that have to do with the NNTP protocol. Not sue if this is
the only RFC that defines it but here is one:

https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc977/rfc977.html

2.2. Character Codes

Commands and replies are composed of characters from the ASCII
character set. When the transport service provides an 8-bit byte
(octet) transmission channel, each 7-bit character is transmitted
right justified in an octet with the high order bit cleared to zero.

I don't see Unicode mentioned anywhere, but for content & commands is
the *ASCII* character set

that's from 1986, so of course it doesn't say anything about unicode,
which did not exist then.

rfc 3977 from 2006 replaced 977. note the part where it states utf-8
is *mandatory* (and the exceptions are not relevant to the contents of
the post).

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977#section-10
RFC 977 [RFC977] was written at a time when internationalisation was
not seen as a significant issue. As such, it was written on the
assumption that all communication would be in ASCII and use only a
7-bit transport layer, although in practice just about all known
implementations are 8-bit clean.
....
This specification extends NNTP from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to UTF-8
[RFC3629]. Except in the two areas discussed below, UTF-8 (which is
a superset of US-ASCII) is mandatory, and implementations MUST NOT
use any other encoding.


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977#appendix-D
Appendix D. Changes from RFC 977

In general every attempt has been made to ensure that the protocol
specification in this document is compatible with the version
specified in RFC 977 [RFC977] and the various facilities adopted from
RFC 2980 [RFC2980]. However, there have been a number of changes,
some compatible and some not.
....
o The default character set is changed from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to
UTF-8 [RFC3629] (note that US-ASCII is a subset of UTF-8). This
matter is discussed further in Section 10.

In article ,
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
nospam wrote:
unicode is the current standard, which supports all characters. ascii
does not.

And what does that have to do with the NNTP protocol. Not sue if this is
the only RFC that defines it but here is one:

And what does it have o do with:

Microsoft might change the cadence of its Windows 10 feature)
rollouts starting next year in order to help prioritize Windows 10X
development.

Really, folks. You need to learn about editing Subject lines!

--
The last time a Republican cared about you, you were a fetus.

On 23 Jul 2020, Jonathan N. Little wrote
(in article ):

Wolffan wrote:

apparently ‘curly quotes’ can cause conniptions
This is why they complain, because real newreaders that follow the spec
can renders your messages poorly making it difficult to read. Just as
using HTML in a plain text medium:

html
head

meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
/head
body text="#008000" bgcolor="#faf0e6"
pNot Official from Microsoft but May Jo Foley seems to suggest
this:/p
pa class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-plans-for-single-screen-windows-
10x-rollout-in-spring-2021-dual-screen-in-spring-2022/"<https://www.zdnet.
com/article/microsoft-plans-for-single-screen-windows-10x-rollout-in-spring-20
21-dual-screen-in-spring-2022/>/a/p
pMary claims to have connections with Microsoft Internal Sources.Â
Nothing from Thurrott yet but it's too early.br
/p
pbr/p
...

Everyone has a right to be a ass, just don't be surprised if you're
kill-filed and ignored.

go ahead and killfile me. I won’t care.

On 23 Jul 2020, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

unicode is the current standard, which supports all characters. ascii
does not.

And what does that have to do with the NNTP protocol. Not sue if this is
the only RFC that defines it but here is one:

https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc977/rfc977.html

2.2. Character Codes

Commands and replies are composed of characters from the ASCII
character set. When the transport service provides an 8-bit byte
(octet) transmission channel, each 7-bit character is transmitted
right justified in an octet with the high order bit cleared to zero.

I don't see Unicode mentioned anywhere, but for content & commands is
the *ASCII* character set

that's from 1986, so of course it doesn't say anything about unicode,
which did not exist then.

rfc 3977 from 2006 replaced 977. note the part where it states utf-8
is *mandatory* (and the exceptions are not relevant to the contents of
the post).

I rather thought that there’d been an update to the rules... Why am I not
surprised that the more extreme rules commandos do not, themselves, follow
those rules that they don’t like?



https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977#section-10
RFC 977 [RFC977] was written at a time when internationalisation was
not seen as a significant issue. As such, it was written on the
assumption that all communication would be in ASCII and use only a
7-bit transport layer, although in practice just about all known
implementations are 8-bit clean.
...
This specification extends NNTP from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to UTF-8
[RFC3629]. Except in the two areas discussed below, UTF-8 (which is
a superset of US-ASCII) is mandatory, and implementations MUST NOT
use any other encoding.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977#appendix-D
Appendix D. Changes from RFC 977

In general every attempt has been made to ensure that the protocol
specification in this document is compatible with the version
specified in RFC 977 [RFC977] and the various facilities adopted from
RFC 2980 [RFC2980]. However, there have been a number of changes,
some compatible and some not.
...
o The default character set is changed from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to
UTF-8 [RFC3629] (note that US-ASCII is a subset of UTF-8). This
matter is discussed further in Section 10.

That’s how I thought it was. It appears that lots of other people felt that
ASCII was too restrictive.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 09:54:20, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Zaghadka wrote
(in ):
[]
Preferred line length? Just curious.

80 xtrs

I've heard 72 suggested - as it allows four levels of quoting (addition
of " "), and after four levels it's _usually_ no longer relevant (-:

Fixed width font just goes without saying. I won't even ask.

Lucida Typewriter Std 12 point

Courier New. (I used to use 10; I think 12 now as I get older.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

… too popular actually to be any good. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 2-8
February 2013

On 23 Jul 2020, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 09:54:20, wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Zaghadka wrote
(in ):
[]
Preferred line length? Just curious.

80 xtrs
I've heard 72 suggested - as it allows four levels of quoting (addition
of " "), and after four levels it's _usually_ no longer relevant (-:

those of us who use unicode (shock! horror!) tend to prefer slightly longer
lines. 72 xtrs will work, but for my purposed 80 is better.But I set my
system to just reflow lines anyway.


Fixed width font just goes without saying. I won't even ask.

Lucida Typewriter Std 12 point
Courier New. (I used to use 10; I think 12 now as I get older.)

On 23 Jul 2020, Ken Blake wrote
(in article ):

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken wrote:
On 7/21/2020 7:24 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2020-07-21, Sjouke wrote:
Idiot.
HTML has no legitimate place on Usenet.


I agree.


Neither do bullet points.


But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?
They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.

Yes.

I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)

I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.

. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.

Yes.

those who use the o remind me of Arlen Holder. This is not something to be
desired.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:18:08, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 09:54:20, wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Zaghadka wrote
(in ):
[]
Preferred line length? Just curious.

80 xtrs
I've heard 72 suggested - as it allows four levels of quoting (addition
of " "), and after four levels it's _usually_ no longer relevant (-:

those of us who use unicode (shock! horror!) tend to prefer slightly longer
lines. 72 xtrs will work, but for my purposed 80 is better.But I set my
system to just reflow lines anyway.

Yes, most modern software will break up long lines automatically. Mine
does most of the time, though occasionally doesn't - usually (though it
is not often), IIRR, when someone has quoted a line that, in the
previous post, wrapped fine. Something to do with "hard and soft
returns" I think - I've never really got into the details.
[]
(I normally read in a window about 100 characters wide - I couldn't have
told you that without looking [at the ruler]; I just use what feels
comfortable. I _do_ have it set to wrap at 72 [80 for the .sig], but
whether it inserts hard or soft returns I have no idea.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

… too popular actually to be any good. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 2-8
February 2013

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:19:49, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Ken Blake wrote
(in article ):

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken wrote:
[]
But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?
They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.

Yes.

I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)

I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.

. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.

Yes.

those who use the o remind me of Arlen Holder. This is not something to be
desired.

I'd agree with that undesirability, But I was using os before - I think
- I encountered him. (Not that I often find the need to use bullets at
all.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

On 7/23/2020 10:48 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:19:49, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Ken Blake wrote
(in article ):

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken wrote:
[]
But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?
They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.

Yes.

I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)

I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.

. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.

Yes.

those who use the o remind me of Arlen Holder. This is not something to be
desired.

I'd agree with that undesirability, But I was using os before - I think
- I encountered him. (Not that I often find the need to use bullets at
all.)



I seldom use bullets. I am more likely to number points, like this:

1. First point

2. Second point

3. etc.




--
Ken

On 7/24/20 10:29 AM, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:48 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:19:49, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Ken Blake wrote
(in article ):

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken Â* wrote:
[]
But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?
They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.

Yes.

I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)

I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.

. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.

Yes.

those who use the o remind me of Arlen Holder. This is not something to be
desired.

I'd agree with that undesirability, But I was using os before - I think
- I encountered him. (Not that I often find the need to use bullets at
all.)



I seldom use bullets. I am more likely to number points, like this:

1. First point

2. Second point

3. etc.




I don't like those that use the bullets when there is only one in the list.

slkfj;alkjs;dlfkja;s
o this is one

03298402983402[wuerwouer
o this is 2nd.

etc.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 11:40:55, Big Al wrote:
On 7/24/20 10:29 AM, this is what Ken Blake wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:48 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:19:49, Wolffan wrote:
On 23 Jul 2020, Ken Blake wrote
(in article ):

On 7/22/2020 10:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 09:42:50, Ken
* wrote:
[]
But I disagree with that. What's wrong with bullet points?
They can be quite effectively done with a lower-case letter O

o like this.

Yes.

I've also seen people using a full stop (US: period; actually, probably
best just to say a dot)

I'm familiar with both "full stop" and "period." Probably most of us
here are.

. like this,

but I think in most fonts the o is better.

Yes.

those who use the o remind me of Arlen Holder. This is not something to be
desired.

I'd agree with that undesirability, But I was using os before - I think
- I encountered him. (Not that I often find the need to use bullets at
all.)
I seldom use bullets. I am more likely to number points, like
this:
1. First point
2. Second point
3. etc.

Me too, but sometimes I find some points link together, so I end up
using 2a, 2b, etc. (not that bullets actually help with that).

I don't like those that use the bullets when there is only one in the
list.

slkfj;alkjs;dlfkja;s
o this is one

03298402983402[wuerwouer
o this is 2nd.

etc.

Aargh, you've got another of my bugbears: mixed numbering (or, as in
that example, mixed phrasing). People who say (A) this, then (2) that -
or, "on the one hand" this, and never get to the other hand. I think
such indicates woolly thinking.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech;
they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down
to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader),
in RT 6-12 July 2013