ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:01:56 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest


You ever heard of tinyurl.com?!? Seeesh!
Why should he bother?

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

You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in and characters,
like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.

It doesn't work in some news clients when it's already chopped up. So I
re-fixed it.

--
john mcwilliams

"Robert Spanjaard" wrote in message
news:8fa06$4b7485c7
[]
I like to see what kind of link I'm going to click on. So I don't bother
clicking on shortened links.



--
Regards, Robert
http://www.arumes.com

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

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:33:09 -0800, Frank ess wrote:

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:01:56 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

You ever heard of tinyurl.com?!? Seeesh!

Why should he bother?

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

You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in and
characters, like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.

Didn't work here.

Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling
quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest


--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:33:09 -0800, Frank ess wrote:

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:01:56 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest
You ever heard of tinyurl.com?!? Seeesh!
Why should he bother?

He can send long URLs without first wrapping them. I clicked on it and
it worked.
You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in and
characters, like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.
Didn't work here.

Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling
quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

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

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

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

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:32:12 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in and
characters, like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.
Didn't work here.

Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling
quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest

As I pointed out yesterday, the breaks have to be removed from the URL.

No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.
If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/link.png

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Robert Spanjaard wrote:

No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.

Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC?

If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.

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

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:02:15 +0000, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.

Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

Appendix C.

If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.

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'?

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.

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?

What exactly are "legal TIFF files"? I don't have any objection to the
TIFF formats I know.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:47:34 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:


Errr, and YOU did what, Professor?

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?

On 2/12/10 4:49 PM, in article ,
"me" wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:47:34 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:


Errr, and YOU did what, Professor?

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?

No, moron. I was referring to the fact that while you were chastising me for
quoting me for quoting a bunch of unnecessary lines, YOU DID THE SAME DAMN
THING in your net-copping. Irony knows no boundary.

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:32:12 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in and
characters, like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way.
Didn't work here.
Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling
quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...oller=Blog&plc
kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl
ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-
bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=b logDest
As I pointed out yesterday, the breaks have to be removed from the URL.

No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.
If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.

http://www.arumes.com/temp/link.png

What does that dead (as it's an image) link prove?

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

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.

--
lsmft