Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > JPEG and lossy

Reply
Thread Tools

JPEG and lossy

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:31:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/06 3:27 PM, Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:45:32 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your sig delimiter is still missing.
>>> If it bothers you some much fix it yourself.
>>> --
>>> Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
>>> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

>> If you now put a space behind the two dashes, you'll have it nailed!

>
> You did not get it. Given the implied attitude in your second mention of
> it, right now as far as I'm concerned hell could freeze over first.
> --
> Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


Now there's a mature, reasoned response. Sigh.
At least your sig isn't 20 lines long....
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:02 -0800, in rec.photo.digital http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>Why not set your ego aside... and post correctly constructed
>articles. It won't make him any more right or wrong, but at
>least your articles won't be wrong every single time!


Because I have set my newsreader to use two dashes to delimitate the sig,
which my newreader properly parses upon replies.
--
Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:36:03 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Now there's a mature, reasoned response. Sigh.
>At least your sig isn't 20 lines long....


Given your other reply, heal thyself and use a proper newsreader which
correctly deliminates the sig following two dashes.
--
Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:27:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Of course, Ed, I am not a rocket scientist, but I swear most folks are
>able to correct a sig delimiter without getting in a swivet.
>

Neither am I. And I have corrected it to use two dashes which my
newsreader properly parses. Maybe you need to take your own advise and use
a proper program for the task at hand?
--
Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:36:03 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Now there's a mature, reasoned response. Sigh.
>>At least your sig isn't 20 lines long....

>
>Given your other reply, heal thyself and use a proper newsreader which
>correctly deliminates the sig following two dashes.


A correctly configured newsreader recognizes "\n-- \n" as a signature
delimiter. Yours is misconfigured.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:27:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Of course, Ed, I am not a rocket scientist, but I swear most folks are
>>able to correct a sig delimiter without getting in a swivet.
>>

> Neither am I. And I have corrected it to use two dashes which my
>newsreader properly parses. Maybe you need to take your own advise and use
>a proper program for the task at hand?


You've set it, incorrectly.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:02 -0800, in rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed)
>(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Why not set your ego aside... and post correctly constructed
>>articles. It won't make him any more right or wrong, but at
>>least your articles won't be wrong every single time!

>
>Because I have set my newsreader to use two dashes to delimitate the sig,
>which my newreader properly parses upon replies.


The *standard* delimiter is two dashes followed by a space and a
newlinee. Perhaps *your* newsreader is (mis-)configured to work
with just two dashes, but tell me what that has to do with
everyone else's standard newsreader?

Do you format articles for you alone to read, or do you intend
other to read them? It would seem that you should target the
audience, rather than your own ego.

Here is a bit of discussion you might learn from:

"Early difficulties in inferring return addresses from arti-
cle headers led to "signatures": short closing texts, auto-
matically added to the end of articles by posting agents,
identifying the poster and giving his network addresses
etc. If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to
an article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter
line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by one
blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD limit the length of
signatures, since verbose excess bordering on abuse is common
if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a common limit.

NOTE: While signatures are arguably a blemish, they are a
well-understood convention, and convey- ing the same
information in headers exposes it to mangling and makes it
rather less conspicuous. A standard delimiter line makes
it possible for reading agents to handle signatures
specially if desired. (This is unfortunately hampered by
extensive misunderstanding of, and misuse of, the
delimiter.)

NOTE: The choice of delimiter is somewhat unfortu- nate,
since it relies on preservation of trailing white space,
but it is too well-established to change. There is work
underway to define a more sophisticated signature scheme
as part of MIME, and this will presumably supersede the
current convention in due time.

NOTE: Four 75-column lines of signature text is 300
characters, which is ample to convey name and mail-address
information in all but the most bizarre situations."
-- From Henry Spencer's "Son-of-rfc1036"

See also RFC2646 and RFC3676.


--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:02 -0800, in rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed)
> (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> Why not set your ego aside... and post correctly constructed
>> articles. It won't make him any more right or wrong, but at
>> least your articles won't be wrong every single time!

>
> Because I have set my newsreader to use two dashes to delimitate the sig,
> which my newreader properly parses upon replies.
> --
> Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


So, because YOUR newsreader work wrong, the rest of us should suffer?
Makes sense.
sigh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:27:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Of course, Ed, I am not a rocket scientist, but I swear most folks are
>> able to correct a sig delimiter without getting in a swivet.
>>

> Neither am I. And I have corrected it to use two dashes which my
> newsreader properly parses. Maybe you need to take your own advise and use
> a proper program for the task at hand?
> --
> Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


No, you need to use one that is configured to the standard. but enough
of your guff, Ruf.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2006
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:29:55 -0800, in rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed)
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:36:03 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Now there's a mature, reasoned response. Sigh.
>>>At least your sig isn't 20 lines long....

>>
>>Given your other reply, heal thyself and use a proper newsreader which
>>correctly deliminates the sig following two dashes.

>
>A correctly configured newsreader recognizes "\n-- \n" as a signature
>delimiter. Yours is misconfigured.


Gotta love you and Ron all of a sudden giving a hoot about this, as it
would seem you could care less until John whined about it, as my newsreader
has been configured this way for years.

Before anyone replies, Yes I'm being a bastard and you can thank John for
that. Had he been at least the bit patient this all would be moot. The fact
he had open his big mouth because I hadn't moved quick enough to suit him
is the cause for my being an ass. So be it. Don't like it? Kill file me, I
could care less.
--
Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non "lossy" formats ? John Fitzsimons Digital Photography 17 01-26-2006 09:45 AM
In Picasa2, Is Rotating A Vertical JPEG Image Lossy Or Lossless? Morton Linder Digital Photography 24 09-21-2005 01:19 PM
Lossy JPEG to ? for processing uufda Digital Photography 3 11-09-2004 10:05 AM
Rotating in some programs can be "lossy". RicktheStick Digital Photography 7 10-23-2003 12:08 PM
Lossless vs. lossy Robert Peirce Digital Photography 18 10-22-2003 12:22 AM



Advertisments