>>40,42
Totally agree. The only Minus I have of POP3 is that you have to Fetch ALL the email. And you are right that SMAP is not used, it is in the Beta stages still. It needs testing. I'd prefer a STOMP protocol for implementing a simpler IMAP.
>>45
I am not against UTF-8, for exactly those reasons. The thing that I dislike in the UTF-8 Character set is things like: ⁇﹖⁈⁉‽‼❕❗❢❣ꜝꜞꜟ﹗！ᵃ ᵇ ᶜ ᵈ ᵉ ᶠ ᵍ ʰ ⁱ ʲ ᵏ ˡ ᵐ ⁿ ᵒ ᵖ ʳ ˢ ᵗ ᵘ ᵛ ʷ ˣ ʸ ᶻ⁰ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ⁺ ⁻ ⁼ ⁽ ⁾ ₀ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ ₊ ₋ ₌ ₍ ₎
Basically unnecessary things, esp. things that can be represented using simple circumventions and discourse. I dislike the most things that are repeated. What is wrong with ☺ when ^.^ is just enough. I just saved 2 bytes whoopee
!
>>46
I think it is more of a satirical piece. But there are some truths in there. I tried cracking only the page on this discussion.
>>47
Hahaha, so right. I would have used gofish just to make the readers cry to make it more ironic.
>>49
Or sed for that matter. Their hack made my day.
>>51
Neither do I ¯\(°_o)/¯
>>52
Um, character set does not determine how connection control is handled. HTTP, POP3, IMAP, NNTP, etc. have only used US-ASCII bytes to handle their connection controls, since you do not need that many bytes to represent flow. The only minus is markup in the flow. HTTP is the most cluttered protocol of them all, using paragraph long specifications for a simple GET and POST. I rather support Waka than live with the cluttered specifications of HTTP/1.1. Gopher does it right, in that you only need a byte to represent something. One Byte, nothing more.
Also Latin-1 is well within UTF-8, so much it is backwards compatible
!