f



Problem with selection boxes

Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.
I've taken a couple from Survey Monkey and other sites. If I make a
selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if I try to
move the viewport to get to the next question.

I can't move the viewport with arrow keys as that changes the selection;
page up and page down don't have a function. To move the viewport, I have
to take an extra step to click somewhere on the page that's not a selection
nor link to move the viewport. It's not always convientient to use
the slidebar.

As a user, I like having the option of using the keyboard.

Does anyone have an example of a survey page that doesn't have this
feature, that would allow me to move the viewport as desired with
the usual key strokes without changing the selection?

This seems to be a recent change because I don't recall encountering
the issue in the past.
0
Adam
4/16/2016 4:04:29 PM
comp.authoring.html 7078 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

22 Replies
565 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 8

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 16:04:29 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>  If I make a
> selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if I try to
> move the viewport to get to the next question.

If you have a [Tab] key, use that. If you don't (as w/ most phones/tablets)
you're up a creek w/o a tabble (... err ... paddle :-) ), so use a finger. 

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
0
tlvp
4/17/2016 4:21:06 AM
Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.

Irrelevant noise.

> I've taken a couple from Survey Monkey and other sites. If I make a
> selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if I try to
> move the viewport to get to the next question.

You are not moving the viewport; the viewport is the visual container in 
which (Web) content is displayed.  What you may have done is attempting to 
scroll it, respectively its content.
 
> I can't move the viewport with arrow keys as that changes the selection;
> page up and page down don't have a function. To move the viewport, I have
> to take an extra step to click somewhere on the page that's not a
> selection nor link to move the viewport. It's not always convientient to
> use the slidebar.

What you should be doing is to use the Tab key, or a keyboard shortcut 
combination to move the focus to a specific other element, instead of the 
cursor keys.  It is then required of the author of the Web site to not 
actively prevent this from being effective, and to enable it, respectively.

> As a user, I like having the option of using the keyboard.

Is this a user story that you as a Web author/developer have created, and 
want to satisfy?  Keep in mind that this is a discussion group on authoring 
for the Web and on the Web using HTML; it is _not_ a user forum on how to 
use the Web.
 
> Does anyone have an example of a survey page that doesn't have this
> feature, that would allow me to move the viewport as desired with
> the usual key strokes without changing the selection?

Probably yes.
 
> This seems to be a recent change because I don't recall encountering
> the issue in the past.

Not only is this behavior not new, it also has nothing to do with HTML.  
Scrolling the viewport and acting on user input are primarily features of 
the user agent.  You have not even said which user agent(s) you are 
referring to, let alone showed the underlying markup.  This is not a quiz; 
but in case that my answer confuses you, know that there is not only one 
browser.

<http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>


PointedEars
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16
0
Thomas
4/17/2016 3:08:12 PM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.

>Irrelevant noise.

Go fuck yourself.

>>I've taken a couple from Survey Monkey and other sites. If I make a
>>selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if I try to
>>move the viewport to get to the next question.

>You are not moving the viewport; the viewport is the visual container in 
>which (Web) content is displayed.  What you may have done is attempting to 
>scroll it, respectively its content.

I know I'm not moving the viewport. I JUST WROTE THAT I'M NOT MOVING
THE VIEWPORT.

In any event, you're wrong:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_rwd_viewport.asp

What you're describing is called a Web page.

As you've gone out of your way to inflict both offensiveness and
idiocy together in one followup, the rest snipped unread.
0
Adam
4/17/2016 3:13:47 PM
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 16:04:29 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>If I make a selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if
>>I try to move the viewport to get to the next question.

>If you have a [Tab] key, use that. If you don't (as w/ most phones/tablets)
>you're up a creek w/o a tabble (... err ... paddle :-) ), so use a finger. 

>HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Through trial and error, I was able to move to the next selection without
altering the choice. I'm complaining about bad design here that surely
makes survey results invalid.

I took another survey yesterday. The problem was "solved" by showing the
whole page within the dimensions of my screen with lots and lots and lots
of pages to get to the end of the survey. That is acceptable for surveys
with a half dozen questions, but no more than that.

Can anyone point me to an alternative design?
0
Adam
4/17/2016 3:17:31 PM
Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.
>> Irrelevant noise.
> 
> Go fuck yourself.

Your vocabulary makes an empty intersection with mine.
 
>>>I've taken a couple from Survey Monkey and other sites. If I make a
>>>selection from multiple choices, the selection is moved if I try to
>>>move the viewport to get to the next question.
> 
>>You are not moving the viewport; the viewport is the visual container in
>>which (Web) content is displayed.  What you may have done is attempting to
>>scroll it, respectively its content.
> 
> I know I'm not moving the viewport. I JUST WROTE THAT I'M NOT MOVING
> THE VIEWPORT.

You are not even trying to move it because you cannot.

> In any event, you're wrong:
> http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_rwd_viewport.asp
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> What you're describing is called a Web page.

ROTFL, YMMD.


PointedEars 
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16
0
Thomas
4/17/2016 3:18:11 PM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>> Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.
>>> Irrelevant noise.
>> 
>> Go fuck yourself.
>
>Your vocabulary makes an empty intersection with mine.

Feel free to step on one. More idiocy snipped.
0
Adam
4/17/2016 3:56:29 PM
Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.
>>>> Irrelevant noise.
>>> Go fuck yourself.
>> Your vocabulary makes an empty intersection with mine.
> 
> Feel free to step on one. More idiocy snipped.

I am certain that other people will agree: Your blissful, presumptuous 
ignorance, including that of the basics of Web authoring, where you are 
posting to, and whom you are communicating with – akin to a car mechanic 
going into a hospital and telling a medical doctor how to hold their scalpel 
properly –, is very refreshing.  Please continue improving my already great 
weekend.


Best regards,

PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
0
Thomas
4/17/2016 4:18:36 PM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> Friends have twisted my arm over the past few weeks to take surveys.
>>>>> Irrelevant noise.
>>>> Go fuck yourself.
>>> Your vocabulary makes an empty intersection with mine.
>> 
>> Feel free to step on one. More idiocy snipped.
>
>I am certain that other people will agree: Your blissful, presumptuous 
>ignorance, including that of the basics of Web authoring, where you are 
>posting to, and whom you are communicating with – akin to a car mechanic 
>going into a hospital and telling a medical doctor how to hold their scalpel 
>properly –, is very refreshing.  Please continue improving my already great 
>weekend.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>PointedEars

I may have my faults, but at least I don't believe I'm a fictional
television character. Also, I have the ability to quote text without
creating a text wall. I also know better than to post non-ASCII
"smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.

I also didn't attack you, poor baby. You attacked me. You then got
quite defensive about it.
0
Adam
4/17/2016 5:23:28 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

----------------16462458302134358788
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2016-04-17 17:23:28 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
> I also know better than to post non-ASCII
> "smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.

"Not even wrong,” as the kids say.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
  -- Charles Williams.  "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
----------------16462458302134358788
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>
<meta name="Generator" content="Cocoa HTML Writer">
<meta name="CocoaVersion" content="1404.46">
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 15.0px; font: 18.0px Courier}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px; font: 18.0px Courier; color: #011892}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Courier; min-height: 22.0px}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Courier; color: #929292}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Courier; color: #929292; min-height: 22.0px}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="p1">On 2016-04-17 17:23:28 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:</p>
<p class="p2">I also know better than to post non-ASCII</p>
<p class="p2">"smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.</p>
<p class="p3"><br></p>
<p class="p4">"Not even wrong,” as the kids say.</p>
<p class="p5"><br></p>
<p class="p4">--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p4">John W Kennedy</p>
<p class="p4">"The blind rulers of Logres</p>
<p class="p4">Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."</p>
<p class="p4"><span class="Apple-converted-space">  </span>-- Charles Williams.<span class="Apple-converted-space">  </span>"Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"</p>
</body>
</html>
----------------16462458302134358788--

0
John
4/18/2016 1:07:59 AM
John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2016-04-17 17:23:28 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>> I also know better than to post non-ASCII
>> "smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.
> 
> "Not even wrong,” as the kids say.

It is wrong to think that typographically correct quotation marks, as 
provided by the Unicode characters U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK and 
U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK in this case, would have to be "smart 
quotes" (instead of being used explicitly), and it is wrong to think that 
those characters are not possible in plain text.  [However, you have mixed 
U+0022 QUOTATION MARK with U+201D for one text item, which is a 
typographical error.  Insofar you should probably not rely on that the 
“smart quotes” feature is working correctly with your user agent.]

It is also wrong to think that all Network News messages must only contain 
characters that can be encoded with US-ASCII.  In fact, all conforming 
Network News clients must support MIME per RFC 5536 (2009 CE), § 2.3, 
thereby codifying the de-facto standard that has existed in operating 
systems and on Usenet since more than a decade before publication of the 
standard.  [For example, Mozilla Thunderbird (first version released in 
2003-07), one widely used newsreader (even if only for the fact that it is 
also a widely used e-mail client), asks the user whether it should post 
using UTF-8 if the message contains characters that cannot be encoded with 
the factory default character encoding, usually ISO-8859-1).]

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-2.3>

However, it is not wrong to think that multi-part HTML messages do not 
belong into Usenet as it is a plain-text communications medium.  As you have 
posted such, please configure your user agent accordingly, or use one like 
Mozilla Thunderbird where this recommended setting is the factory default.

<https://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html>


PointedEars
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
0
Thomas
4/18/2016 3:02:20 AM
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 05:02:20 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Insofar ...

OT: "insofar" is not a universal English counterpart for German "insofern",
no matter how much translate.google.com may suppose otherwise :-) .

Think of how / whether "insofern" and "insoweit" do / do not differ.

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
0
tlvp
4/18/2016 3:42:21 AM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>John W Kennedy wrote:
>>On 2016-04-17 17:23:28 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

>>>I also know better than to post non-ASCII
>>>"smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.

>>"Not even wrong,” as the kids say.

>It is wrong to think that typographically correct quotation marks, as 
>provided by the Unicode characters U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK and 
>U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK in this case, would have to be "smart 
>quotes" (instead of being used explicitly), and it is wrong to think that 
>those characters are not possible in plain text.

A famous word processor refers to left and right single and double quotes
as "smart quotes". They're not used in when typography is used, yes, but
not in plain text.

Typographically correct?

>[However, you have mixed U+0022 QUOTATION MARK with U+201D for one text
>item, which is a typographical error.

You understand he did that deliberately to make fun of you?

If I ever catch you substituting Unicode single close quote when you
should have used Unicode apostrophe, I shall bring you up on charges with
the holy typographers' guild and you shall be excommunicated.

>It is also wrong to think that all Network News messages must only contain 
>characters that can be encoded with US-ASCII.

That is NOT my position. You lose by resorting to straw man argument.
There are any number of Unicode characters that substitute for characters
that could only be created in ASCII with backspace-overstrike sequences,
also inappropriate on Usenet.

My statement was specific to non-ASCII quote characters being unacceptable
in plain text.

>In fact, all conforming Network News clients must support MIME per RFC
>5536 (2009 CE), § 2.3, thereby codifying the de-facto standard that
>has existed in operating systems and on Usenet since more than a decade
>before publication of the standard.

Wow. You entirely misunderstand the RFC, which attempts to standardize an
article format and not News clients. You'd know that if you had read all
the way to the main title. There's a vast difference in issues as clients
themselves don't need to support MIME to be used on the network. They
just need to prepare an article in a well understood News format.

(I've been posting MIME-less forever.)

>[For example, Mozilla Thunderbird (first version released in 2003-07),
>one widely used newsreader (even if only for the fact that it is also a
>widely used e-mail client), asks the user whether it should post using
>UTF-8 if the message contains characters that cannot be encoded with
>the factory default character encoding, usually ISO-8859-1).]

Somehow, years before MIME was used on Usenet, users would post articles
using the the appropriate Latin-N character set for the language they
posted in, which wasn't always going to be Latin-1. For a very long time,
that was the common way to do it. Wide support of UTF-8 took years to
come into being.

Thunderbird has been a rather notorious failure as a News client for
long periods of time breaking all sorts of conventions because of
long-standing unaddressed coding mistakes. Mozilla didn't maintain
parts of the code for many many years. We always knew when a user
posted a followup using T-bird because T-bird was unable to correctly
format the attributions. Also, T-bird was pretty notorious for not
taking down sessions when interacting with the News server.

No, dude: T-bird was NEVER "a defacto standard". It was always too broken.

>However, it is not wrong to think that multi-part HTML messages do not 
>belong into Usenet as it is a plain-text communications medium.  As you have 
>posted such, please configure your user agent accordingly, or use one like 
>Mozilla Thunderbird where this recommended setting is the factory default.

Again: He was making fun of you, you blithering idiot.
0
Adam
4/18/2016 1:44:16 PM
tlvp wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 05:02:20 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Insofar ...
> 
> OT: "insofar" is not a universal English counterpart for German
> "insofern", no matter how much translate.google.com may suppose otherwise
> :-) .
> 
> Think of how / whether "insofern" and "insoweit" do / do not differ.

</killfile>

JFYI, I do not need to use Google Translate to write proper English; I have 
the proper formal education (which I have received both in my home country 
and abroad) plus more than 20 years of experience in using that language, 
communicating with its native speakers: at the workplace, with customers, 
and in my free time (including Usenet).  IOW, I am *fluent* in it 
(equivalent to CEFR/CECR C2) which has been confirmed in language tests and 
by people I have talked to in English.  (I am certain that those of my 
readers on Usenet who not already have told me so will agree that there is 
little difference between my use of the language and that of a native 
speaker, if they would also use the recommended formal mode.)

I think that your research, if any, lacks both breadth and depth, and that 
you, as a non-native speaker of both English and the source native language, 
should not attempt to lecture other non-native speakers of English about
the proper meaning of idioms of their native language, and their proper 
translation into English.  For example, in this context there is *no* 
semantic difference between „insofern“ and „insoweit“ in German; they are 
*synonyms* (as „fern“ and „weit“ are synonyms then).

<http://dict.leo.org/ende/?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=insofar>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/insofar>
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insofar>

<http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/insoweit_insofern_Adverb>
<http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/fern_vormals_kuenftig_entlegen>
 
I can highly recommend the first resource for learning foreign languages as 
it has forum discussions attached in which native speakers take part.  It is 
my impression that at least a part of the vocabulary in the dictionary comes 
from those discussions.

<killfile>


PointedEars
-- 
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
0
Thomas
4/18/2016 5:35:06 PM
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <dciwam@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>tlvp wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 05:02:20 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>>Insofar ...

>>OT: "insofar" is not a universal English counterpart for German
>>"insofern", no matter how much translate.google.com may suppose otherwise
>>:-) .

>>Think of how / whether "insofern" and "insoweit" do / do not differ.

></killfile>

Just when it couldn't get any lamer... 
0
Adam
4/18/2016 6:08:36 PM
18.4.2016, 20:35, Lahn the troll wrote:

> I do not need to use Google Translate to write proper English

Thank you for making it so obvious that your rantings have nothing to do 
with the topic of the group. It is somewhat confusing to people less 
experienced with the group that some of your rantings have nominally 
some (extremely boring and pointless) connection with HTML.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
0
Jukka
4/18/2016 6:14:04 PM
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 18.4.2016, 20:35, Lahn the troll wrote:
>> I do not need to use Google Translate to write proper English
> 
> Thank you for making it so obvious that your rantings have nothing to do
> with the topic of the group.

What does your posting have to do with the topic of the newsgroup?  And how 
could you not see the “OT” tag that I set as soon as I realized that the 
*precursor*, which I corrected, was off-topic?  It is the pot calling the 
kettle black again.

> It is somewhat confusing to people less experienced with the group that
> some of your rantings have nominally some (extremely boring and pointless)
> connection with HTML.

John (W. Kennedy) just proved with his posting that, because of MIME, “smart 
quotes” and Unicode are relevant to HTML, and therefore this newsgroup.


PointedEars
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16
0
Thomas
4/18/2016 6:43:43 PM
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:35:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> ... you, as a non-native speaker of both English and the source native language ...

:-) Guess again :-) ! 

You are aware that "insofar" is used only in a phrase "insofar as ..." ?
while "insofern" can be used both stand-alone and in "insofern als ..." ?
-- well, that's how "insofar" is *not* the equivalent of "insofern".
(What amounts to "insofern" without "als" is "to that extent" or "in that
respect" or "in that regard" :-) . But what do I know? -- Only that
translate.google.com gets it wrong, that you have no need thereof, and ... 

Cheers, -- tlvp (over and out)
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
0
tlvp
4/19/2016 8:16:50 AM
On 2016-04-18 03:02:20 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

> John W Kennedy wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-04-17 17:23:28 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>> I also know better than to post non-ASCII
>>> "smart quotes" to Usenet, a plain-text medium.
>> 
>> "Not even wrong,” as the kids say.
> 
> It is wrong to think that typographically correct quotation marks, as
> provided by the Unicode characters U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK and
> U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK in this case, would have to be "smart
> quotes" (instead of being used explicitly), and it is wrong to think that
> those characters are not possible in plain text.  [However, you have mixed
> U+0022 QUOTATION MARK with U+201D for one text item, which is a
> typographical error.  Insofar you should probably not rely on that the
> “smart quotes” feature is working correctly with your user agent.]

I simply typed it wrong. (For historical reasons involving years and 
years of software misbehavior, I normally limit myself to plain ASCII 
on News, but sometimes my fingers automatically type a typographic 
quote by mistake.)

> It is also wrong to think that all Network News messages must only contain
> characters that can be encoded with US-ASCII.  In fact, all conforming
> Network News clients must support MIME per RFC 5536 (2009 CE), § 2.3,
> thereby codifying the de-facto standard that has existed in operating
> systems and on Usenet since more than a decade before publication of the
> standard.  [For example, Mozilla Thunderbird (first version released in
> 2003-07), one widely used newsreader (even if only for the fact that it is
> also a widely used e-mail client), asks the user whether it should post
> using UTF-8 if the message contains characters that cannot be encoded with
> the factory default character encoding, usually ISO-8859-1).]
> 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-2.3>
> 
> However, it is not wrong to think that multi-part HTML messages do not
> belong into Usenet as it is a plain-text communications medium.

You have just spent two paragraphs saying what I said in seven words, 
to wit, that the sentence: "I also know better than to post non-ASCII 
'smart quotes' to Usenet, a plain-text medium," is nonsense.

>   As you have
> posted such, please configure your user agent accordingly, or use one like
> Mozilla Thunderbird where this recommended setting is the factory default.

Thunderbird misbehaves with my ISP's news server, always jamming up 
like an FTP server in the wrong active/passive mode.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
  -- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

0
John
4/19/2016 7:45:41 PM
John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2016-04-18 03:02:20 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said: 
>> It is also wrong to think that all Network News messages must only
>> contain characters that can be encoded with US-ASCII.  In fact, all 
>> conforming Network News clients must support MIME per RFC 5536 (2009 CE), 
>> § 2.3, thereby codifying the de-facto standard that has existed in
>> operating systems and on Usenet since more than a decade before
>> publication of the standard.  […]
>> 
>> However, it is not wrong to think that multi-part HTML messages do not
>> belong into Usenet as it is a plain-text communications medium.
> 
> You have just spent two paragraphs saying what I said in seven words,

I have elaborated on what you said, pointing out also that the Multi-part 
HTML that you posted is not the appropriate format in Usenet.

> to wit, that the sentence: "I also know better than to post non-ASCII
> 'smart quotes' to Usenet, a plain-text medium," is nonsense.

Of course.
 
>>   As you have
>> posted such, please configure your user agent accordingly, or use one
>> like Mozilla Thunderbird where this recommended setting is the factory
>> default.
> 
> Thunderbird misbehaves with my ISP's news server, always jamming up
> like an FTP server in the wrong active/passive mode.

That Thunderbird posts Multi-part HTML has nothing to do with the used news 
server.  It does that if you have not unchecked the checkbox “Compose 
messages in HTML format” (AFAIK, unchecked is the default) for the news 
account in the Account Settings, and if you have unchecked it but pressed 
the Shift key when you clicked the “Reply to the message” toolbar button.


HTH

PointedEars 
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16
0
Thomas
4/20/2016 3:34:32 AM
On 2016-04-20 03:34:32 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

> John W Kennedy wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-04-18 03:02:20 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>>> It is also wrong to think that all Network News messages must only
>>> contain characters that can be encoded with US-ASCII.  In fact, all
>>> conforming Network News clients must support MIME per RFC 5536 (2009 CE),
>>> § 2.3, thereby codifying the de-facto standard that has existed in
>>> operating systems and on Usenet since more than a decade before
>>> publication of the standard.  […]
>>> 
>>> However, it is not wrong to think that multi-part HTML messages do not
>>> belong into Usenet as it is a plain-text communications medium.
>> 
>> You have just spent two paragraphs saying what I said in seven words,
> 
> I have elaborated on what you said, pointing out also that the Multi-part
> HTML that you posted is not the appropriate format in Usenet.
> 
>> to wit, that the sentence: "I also know better than to post non-ASCII
>> 'smart quotes' to Usenet, a plain-text medium," is nonsense.
> 
> Of course.
> 
>>> As you have
>>> posted such, please configure your user agent accordingly, or use one
>>> like Mozilla Thunderbird where this recommended setting is the factory
>>> default.
>> 
>> Thunderbird misbehaves with my ISP's news server, always jamming up
>> like an FTP server in the wrong active/passive mode.
> 
> That Thunderbird posts Multi-part HTML has nothing to do with the used news
> server.

I didn't say I was using Thunderbird. I gave it up years ago, because 
it didn't work.

>   It does that if you have not unchecked the checkbox “Compose
> messages in HTML format” (AFAIK, unchecked is the default) for the news
> account in the Account Settings, and if you have unchecked it but pressed
> the Shift key when you clicked the “Reply to the message” toolbar button.
> 
> 
> HTH
> 
> PointedEars


-- 
John W Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
  -- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

0
John
4/20/2016 8:23:32 PM
John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2016-04-20 03:34:32 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> Thunderbird misbehaves with my ISP's news server, always jamming up
>>> like an FTP server in the wrong active/passive mode.
>> That Thunderbird posts Multi-part HTML has nothing to do with the used
>> news server.
> 
> I didn't say I was using Thunderbird. I gave it up years ago, because
> it didn't work.

I see.  It has (been) improved since then.

 
F'up2 poster

PointedEars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
0
Thomas
4/20/2016 11:35:54 PM
John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2016-04-20 03:34:32 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> Thunderbird misbehaves with my ISP's news server, always jamming up
>>> like an FTP server in the wrong active/passive mode.
>> That Thunderbird posts Multi-part HTML has nothing to do with the used
>> news server.
> 
> I didn't say I was using Thunderbird. I gave it up years ago, because
> it didn't work.

I see.  It has (been) improved since then.

 
F'up2 poster

PointedEars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
0
Thomas
4/20/2016 11:36:31 PM
Reply: