Detecting End-of-File using READLINE command

[Ray Scheel]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:40 PM, George Simon said:
> Maybe Word changes the plain text default to html, I don't know.
~ Yes it does.  Word is incapable of performing as a standards compliant
email client because it was designed not to be one.  In fact, it is quite
capable of taking a standards compliant message and converting the reply
into something nearly impossible for non-MS clients to correctly parse.  Its
use as an email editor should be avoided in any situation where mail could
reasonably be sent to non-MS mail client users.
 
> Unfortunately, I must use Word as my editor (company rules), 
~ The organization of Windham (whom I work for) could loosely be called a
subsidiary used to(? perhaps still does) have a policy prohibiting the use
of structured programming by their mainframe programmers.  Of course, the
programmer we have here who works on their mainframe ignored that policy and
used standard coding practices yet never attracted notice, primarily
because, by using accepted standards, he avoided the tail-chasing they were
usually engaged in.  I've heard of corporate rule mandating the use of Word
as a word processing editor, but never one that forced its use as the editor
within outlook.  If that is the case, you may want to consider handling
outside mail traffic (like your correspondence with this list) through a
Yahoo account or something similar, with the justification to corporate (if
they ask about your Y! use) that you have a hard time getting support from
the fP community because of their corporate rule prohibiting use of
standards-compatible email technology.  

> I did not send the original message, which was in html.  My point was that
I
> had no trouble quoting that html message and was wondering why others did.
~ I don't have trouble either, but the first thing I do with an HTML message
I respond to is force a reply into text-only mode in Outlook for the benefit
of the rest of the list than cannot.  Actually, I convert all of my
responses to text-only, whether they are going to the list or not, as it
reduces bandwidth used and ultimately makes the conversation easier to
follow and or trim as necessary.  The editor in Outlook can more of less
correctly interpret and generally convert the garbage MS graphical editors
takes upon themselves to insert into its formatted email messages, a
functionality it is not reasonable those on non-MS platforms to have to
cater to when its MS that is intentionally diverging from the known,
published, and long accepted standards - not giving you the options of
sending a standards compatible message is not the fault of the folks who set
the standards 20+ years ago.

> As far as the vertical line, I do not see it when I reply to a message, so
I
> don't know how it gets there.
~ It is inserted by the Word/Outlook interface behind the scenes, in a
manner you are not given an option to modify to anything compatible with
email clients other than relatively recent MS offerings

> Just wondering again here but, if top-posting is such a no-no, why does
> Outlook default to that method?  I find no way of changing that, except to

> scroll all the way to the end of the message.
~ ????  All email clients should start with the cursor at the top of the
page, that is true from Outlook to elm/pine to Eudora to Kmail to Firebird
to Lotus Notes.  It is up to you to move down to the sections you wish to
respond to and trim the rest.  I'm using Outlook and don't have to scroll
all the way down to the bottom to begin to respond to the portions I'm
commenting on.  If you are going all the way down without cutting out the
unnecessary portions or adding points on things you are not responding to,
then that is a habit you need to avoid in the future.  

> The fact is John, that 90% of the world loves HTML.  People in general
love
> to attach pictures, use fancy fonts, use emoticons, etc., etc, in their
> emails.  Preferring plain-text to HTML is like preferring black and white
TV
> to color.  I guess some people do, but I prefer color.  See you around.
~ 90% of the world uses MS exclusively, and is thus shielded from the
deliberate attempts by MS to hinder cross-platform compatibility.  Heck, MS
even tries to introduce incompatibilities between its own platforms and
packages.  However, on this list, there is a big chunk of the participants
who are not exclusively using MS email clients to communicate, and for them,
your company's policy of prohibiting standards compatible messages is not
their problem beyond simply having to delete the non-compliant messages as
they appear.  In a list where we are frequently exchanging code and other
formatted text, fancy fonts are a real hindrance to producing a readable
message, and a client that converts variations of syntax characters = : ; )
( { < into graphical similes makes the code completely unreadable, so that
is a "feature" that no participant on this list should want in their client.
It should be clear to you at this point that the problem boils down to using
an editor that cannot leave existing formatting (or lack thereof) alone, but
forces it to be reformatted in a manner known to not be standards
compatible.  Seeing in color has its benefits, but I prefer the original in
black and white to a badly done attempt at colorizing an old film.  

Ray

Ray Scheel               ray.scheel at wsdtx.org 
Windham School District     Computer Services
Programmer                       936-291-5206