Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: PIR interfering with wireless network

  1. #81
    Gerhard Fiedler
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    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 :)

    Gerhard

  2. #82
    ray
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    "Gerhard Fiedler" <gelists@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:o49eu9j5vhb4$.dlg@gelists.gmail.com...
    > 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)



  3. #83
    Gerhard Fiedler
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    ray wrote:

    > "Gerhard Fiedler" <gelists@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:o49eu9j5vhb4$.dlg@gelists.gmail.com...
    >> 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

  4. #84
    Rambo
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> "Gerhard Fiedler" <gelists@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:o49eu9j5vhb4$.dlg@gelists.gmail.com...
    >>> 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.

  5. #85
    ray
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    "Rambo" <Rambo.test@pircarre.be> wrote in message
    news:49b5979e$0$334$5f6aeac3@news.scarlet.nl...
    > Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Gerhard Fiedler" <gelists@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:o49eu9j5vhb4$.dlg@gelists.gmail.com...
    >>>> 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



  6. #86
    Les Cargill
    Guest

    Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

    Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> "Gerhard Fiedler" <gelists@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:o49eu9j5vhb4$.dlg@gelists.gmail.com...
    >>> 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.
    >


    You are correct, sir.

    Fair enough. I hadn't read that one until you brought it
    up. FWIW, Hucker's posts were marked "text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15"

    Mine are marked "format=flowed", and I hit the return key all
    the time :)

    So neener, neener, neener :) ( all in good humor, sir). What
    exactly is the mechanism called that makes something in a 9xx RFC
    somehow seem more official than a 3XXX one? :)

    <snip>
    >
    > Gerhard


    --
    Les Cargill

Similar Threads

  1. major problem creating wireless network with toucan
    By chelsea86 in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-07-08, 10:12 AM
  2. Wireless network to ethernet lan
    By samerking in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-07, 11:27 AM
  3. Because of my wireless card or the wireless network??
    By Mahalo in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-17-07, 02:23 PM
  4. Mixing a wireless router and an ethernet switch. How?
    By jb22 in forum Networking Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-06-07, 04:57 PM
  5. I need help with my wireless network...lost and stuck!
    By insuranceman in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-07-07, 02:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •