ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by me, Feb 10, 2010.

  1. me

    me Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. me

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Feb 11, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. me

    me Guest

    Says the guy who in his very next post quotes 50 lines to add a one
    line reply?

    The url posted works fine in a decent news reader such as agent, it's
    not wrapped and launches with a double-click. What's your excuse?
    me, Feb 11, 2010
  4. me

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Why should he bother?

    He can send long URLs without first wrapping them. I clicked on it and
    it worked.

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Feb 11, 2010
  5. You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in < and > characters,
    like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 11, 2010
  6. me

    Peter Guest

    Jura V jnag gb pbzzhavpngr V gel gb znxr vg rnfvre sbe gur crefba V jnag gb
    znxr zl cbvag gb. Bgurejvfr jul obgure.
    Peter, Feb 11, 2010
  7. I like to see what kind of link I'm going to click on. So I don't bother
    clicking on shortened links.
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 11, 2010
  8. It doesn't work in some news clients when it's already chopped up. So I
    re-fixed it.
    John McWilliams, Feb 12, 2010
  9. []
    Seconded! But it someone posts both the full and a short-form link, I
    don't object. Short-form link only, I pass by.

    David J Taylor, Feb 12, 2010
  10. Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling
    quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text:

    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 12, 2010
  11. As I pointed out yesterday, the breaks have to be removed from the URL.
    So it doesn't have to be a "new" text.


    The above is copied from the broken link above, and all spaces and > > >
    carats taken out.
    Note some clients will do this automatically; not Thunderbird.
    John McWilliams, Feb 12, 2010
  12. No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.
    If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 12, 2010
  13. Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC?
    Interesting idea, that ... "if you/your gear can't handle it,
    it's your/your gear's problem". What happened to 'be conservative
    in what you send and liberal in what you receive'?

    Would you like your camera or RAW converter to produce legal TIFF
    files that happen to be unusable for photoshop or whatever you
    use these TIFFs for?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 12, 2010

    Appendix C.
    Since when do you care? Your messages may have a thin layer of supposed
    politeness, but the tone beneath that layer isn't exactly conservative.
    What exactly are "legal TIFF files"? I don't have any objection to the
    TIFF formats I know.
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 12, 2010
  15. me

    me Guest

    At least what I quoted directly supported the point I was making. Can
    you in good faith assert the same? If it was wrong when I did it,
    wasn't wrong when you did it?
    me, Feb 12, 2010
  16. What does that dead (as it's an image) link prove?

    You deleted the part wherein I said not all clients handle fully broken

    You later cite a five year old RFC, but some of us are talking
    practicality, as well as what's most useful for the greatest number.
    Blindly blaming what other readers can or can not do is not helpful.
    Just because your client can put together badly broken links doesn't
    mean you cannot format them for the larger number of other readers.
    John McWilliams, Feb 13, 2010
  17. It doesn't prove, and I never said or implied it does. I posted it to show
    users of other programs how Pan handles wrapped URLs, which is how they
    should be handled.
    I already answered that part.
    What does that "five year old" mean? Is it too young? Too old? How old
    should it be accordig to you to be valid?
    That's what sticking to standards is for. Which is what I did. I'm not
    going to keep track of all the bugs in every program to avoid them.
    I agree, which is why I'm not blaming blindly.
    They aren't badly broken. They are wrapped as they should be wrapped.

    Get a clue, John. Unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself.
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 13, 2010
  18. me

    R Davis Guest

    You're trying to talk sense to an idiot troll that just spews nonsense for
    attention. You'll also find that it never posts any valid photography
    information whatsoever. It also posts under the monicker of Chrlz
    It's best to just ignore it exists. These
    news-groups are crawling wall to wall with similar idiots.
    R Davis, Feb 13, 2010
  19. me

    Peter Guest

    Not idiots. Just some very sick, prejudiced and/or opinionated people.
    Although I agree it's probably best to ignore most of them, all too often
    they make statements that unknowing innocents may rely on.
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010

  20. The clue is for you, "Robert". The point is the 'fixes' you posted
    worked only for a small number of people, with specific news clients.

    It'd be thoughtful to post URLs in a manner that most people can use
    them with the least trouble.
    John McWilliams, Feb 13, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.