|
|
Yeah! F**k standards. Ignore completely what international standards have said for fifty+ years about the semantics of CR and LF.
Sure enogh: The *nix community has for 30+ years argued 'F**k standards! NIH!' - their only 'significant' argument being that it saves eight bits of storage space per text line. That sure is essential, isn't it?
There are sensible *nix adherents. That does not include those justifying LF newlines 'because it saves eight bits'.
|
|
|
|
|
And now please repeat/explain less emotional, that I don't need to google every thing. Thanks in advance 
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand you right: Any reference to international standards is 'emotional'.
At least if they are in conflict with with what is pushed by the *nix community.
Fair enough. It makes a point, sort of.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only interested in facts. Therefore explain your facts. Best will be if you can explain it exactely which means most of times explain it math whise
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure that you can sort out the facts. I have the impression that you are an expert on sorting.
|
|
|
|
|
<cr> and <lf> derive from old mechanical typewriters where moving the carriage (and horizontal line position) and moving the roller (and vertical line position) were two different operations.
<cr> is a carriage return. On a typewriter it moves that carriage to the home position of the current line and on a computer it moves the insert cursor to the start of the current line (and on unix to the next line.)
<lf> is a line feed. On a typewriter it rotates the roller by one line space (configurable). On a computer it moves the cursor down one line.
Therefore <cr><lf> moves the cursor to the start of the next line and <cr> should just move the cursor to the start of the current line.
|
|
|
|
|
You could also mention that <lf> changes the active vertical position by one line with no change in the horizontal position. Now we are in harmony with International Standard Six Forty Six (and the numerous others that extends it).
|
|
|
|
|
It may not be earth shattering but it is pathetic, the way Teams works. Wait, make that "doesn't work."
|
|
|
|
|
Lately I have noticed on some websites, there appear to be a lone pixel that does not fit in with the pixels around it. One such website is from our pharmacy. I'm beginning to suspect that these pixels serve some purpose other than what you would suspect.
Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon or am I being overly suspicious?
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
I wipe my screens occassionally.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like classic pixel tracking to me. Why they can't have it blend in with the rest of their page however is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
"Pixel tracking?!" I did not know it existed! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of crap out there... and growing everyday. 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Google it. That's one of the oldest things in the book.
If you put an image in an HTML email, your browser will make a request to the server hosting the image and download it so it can be rendered...which is enough proof to tell the originator that the email was opened. And at the very least, that'll provide them with your current public IP. And whatever additional data your email reader sent as part of its request header.
Typically the image is just 1x1 pixel (hence "pixel tracking") and the same color as the background window, so you can't tell just by looking, visually, at the rendered page.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Google it. That's one of the oldest things in the book.
If you put an image in an HTML email,
Yes, but OP was referring to websites, not emails.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a blocker for such things but here's how it works:
The pixel is actually requesting data (a graphic) and in order to get the data it must send you address to the source of the data so it can respond.
Often called a "pixel beacon".
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
But that's for emails, not websites.
|
|
|
|
|
????????
You do realize that 'address' refers to more than just email.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you put a pixel beacon on a website?
|
|
|
|
|
To see which IP addresses have viewed you website. That includes not only the IP address, but also things like identifying web browser used, language preferences, cookies etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't need a pixel beacon on your site to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Last msg on this thread:
You don't need a pixel beacon to do it.
You don't need cookies to do it.
You don't need "fingerprinting" to do it.
But you can use any and all of them. You need to spend some time thinking about this.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: But you can use any and all of them
It's foolish to use a pixel beacon on your own site, silly. Just use a regular image, instead of trying to hide something on your own site.
But you are correct, someone could do it. Someone who has no idea what they are doing could do it.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a thing for websites way back in the day as an access point for all the 3rd party spyvertizers to get a tracking data point. Today I suspect most don't bother with a pixel since by delivering a javascript file instead they can hope to harvest far more information than your IP and the website you're visiting. OTOH the cost of sending the pixel is near zero, and if it can catch a few people who blocked their js is probably worth their while.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
