[MPlayer-users] playlist file syntax

[James Gatt]

Quoting The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net>:

> James Gatt wrote:
>
> > Quoting The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net>:
> >
> >> James Gatt wrote:
>
> >>> That's ok - I think we've discussed quotes in filenames to death
> >>> now.
> >>
> >> I don't, at least not as long as you're still advocating the sort
> >> of change which started this thread. It's just that I don't feel up
> >> to actually doing it at the moment.
> >
> > I didn't start this thread. I am not advocating any change, and
> > probably never will now.
>
> I know you didn't start the thread, but you do seem to have been
> advocating a type of change (or at least the use of a particular if
> ill-defined design philosophy) to which I object. If you're willing to
> drop it, however, I suppose there's not much point to my continuing to
> press...

I am in no position to force a change on mplayer, so I don't see why you react
as if it were such a threat and require me to "drop" it. I will maintain my
opinion that putting the " character in filenames is a bad idea. I am afraid
that is something you simply cannot change. If I contributed a patch, I would
of course respect the views of the people who want to use the software, but
that in no way means I agree with those views.

> >> (Oh, incidentally: please learn to snip. It's a rare occasion when
> >> retaining more than three levels of quoting depth is appropriate.)
> >
> > Please don't tell me to "learn" to do something I obviously would
> > already know how to do - it is rude. If I post a reply verbatim then
> > that is the way I want it presented.
>
> I didn't mean "learn how to snip", I meant "learn when it is appropriate
> to snip", and "learn how much it is appropriate to snip". If you choose
> to post a reply with six levels of quotation depth when no more than,
> say, four (just to avoid blindly flogging my own rule) are needed, then
> "the way you want it presented" is Not Acceptable by my standards - or,
> indeed, by the standards of many others I've come across in my time.

Speak only for yourself please. I do not write to satisfy your standards, I
write to convey a thought. If I find it useful to keep a certain level of
history in order to maintain context then I will do so. I compose the posts I
send to my rules, you may compose the posts you send to your rules. That's how
it works in reality. I will never tell you how to format your posts.

> It is not my intention to be rude, but I chose my phrasing deliberately.
> If you find it offensive, that is your prerogative.

I do not deliberately choose to find something offensive. I accept that you
meant no harm.

> > If you don't want to read it then please don't.
>
> And I don't. I am not, however, thus freed of the necessity of
> downloading the entire block of duplicated text, or of storing it on my
> hard drive as part of my permanent archive of received E-mail (unless,
> in the latter case, I'm willing to create a hole in said archive); nor
> are the intermediary transmitters freed of the necessity of re-sending
> the extra bytes. The comparatively small amount of extra data involved
> in a single message, or even all messages sent by a single person, is
> comparatively trivial in today's high-bandwidth world, that's true - but
> there is not only one person who routinely fails to snip, and when
> multiplied across the number of people involved, the numbers are likely
> to become significant.

Not by today's standards. The bandwidth of intermediary transmitters is many
orders of magnitude more wasted with spam email than a few characters in a few
lines of a mailing list mail that might otherwise have been spared. Similarly,
disk space is so cheap now that the number of bytes saved would not amount to
anything financially measurable. Therefore, in the scale of things today such
an argument for saving a few bytes, even when multiplied across the number of
people involved, might be considered petty. Readability, on the other hand,
might still be an issue. However, I have as often seen the readability of a
post compromised by over-trimming as under-trimming.

> The bulk of the preceding paragraph is, in part, a simple matter of
> "justification after the fact" for my choosing to speak up, somewhat
> mildly (and never on a first offense), to request that people adhere to
> good Netiquette. If you find such a request objectionable, that is - as
> I said - entirely your own problem.

No, actually it's your problem as you appear to be the one who felt it necessary
to request that people adhere to your particular interpretation of good
netiquette. I, personally, never find it necessary to question the formatting
or any other detail of anyone's post other than the subject being discussed, so
it is definitely not my problem.

> And at this point (belatedly), barring the unlikely event of further
> replies containing something which is on-topic, I will make no further
> on-list replies to this branch of this thread. If you want to continue
> discussing such things, you have my E-mail address.

I apologise to all for using bandwidth off-topic. I suspect the only people
reading this thread now are those who do so purely for amusement value. ;)

Regards,
James.