Joe
Fri Jun 03 09:06:21 CDT 2005
Hi Joe,
[interlineated]
"mayayana" <mayaXXyana1a@mindYYspring.com> wrote in message
news:YxOne.12064$uR4.3599@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thanks Joe, I hadn't seen that. (I often find those
> "scripting guys" to have interesting information,
> but I have a hard time concentrating on their articles
> given the odd mix of highly technical talk with their
> hammy and glib conversational style of writing.)
I'm glad someone else here finds this trait annoying, too. There's actually
a philosophical and psychological approach to this type of jargon, that
switches frequently between narrow logic and almost meaningless cliche that
has social, but no intellectual, significance (self-masking, defensive,
defeats conversation, etc.), but I won't go into that now. One can still
pull bits of information out of it.
>
> I guess I should drop by and catch up on their latest
> posts once in a while.
>
This one is Eric Lippert's Blog: Fabulous Adventures In Coding. I find it
more useful than most.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/
Like the other blogs, it's often unfocused or just plain "curious". But
when it's on target, it can be very informative. The earlier blogs tended
to be more informative than some of the later ones. Very useful, sometimes,
to get the perspective of the person who wrote much of the underlying VBS
code. Very thorough explanation of syntax issues.
> If I understood that piece correctly, he's saying
> that there will be limitations handling some 128+ bytes
> on any system that's using 2-byte ANSI characters in
> their default code page. (Japan, China and Korea?)
> It doesn't sound like enough of an issue to worry
> about in normal usage, but it's an interesting
> aspect that I never would have thought of.
>
> (Though even in Japan the problem would only be with
> using something like Chr(224). A 224 byte within
> a string wouldn't cause a problem, since TextStream
> is clearly not looking at the bytes in the string that it
> writes.)
It certainly arises with any 2-byte ANSI or unicode text.
The impression I had was that the issue arises with some code pages, even
with single-byte 128+ characters, because of the way the code page handles
the character. Lippert's main point was that, with text techniques, you
can't avoid code-page handling issues.
>
> I assume the ADODB.Stream doesn't have that
> limitation, but that question was never answered in
> the article. I've avoided ADODB myself because I
> try to avoid anything that's not on all systems. (In fact
> I don't even have the version with Stream (2.6?) installed
> myself. I've just never needed it for anything and it's
> not on 98SE by default.)
>
And, as the blog points out, ADODB is now considered by some as a security
risk suppressed through IE on some systems.
Regards,
Joe Earnest