Is this tidy converting correct?
From: Tong (mlist4suntong_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/22/05
- Previous message: Hugo Vanwoerkom: "Re: How to reinstall without changing anything?"
- Next in thread: michael: "Re: Is this tidy converting correct?"
- Reply: michael: "Re: Is this tidy converting correct?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:24:32 -0400
Hi,
I have this file:
$ cat test | od -t u1
0000000 181 220 210 221 149 132 163 168 183 189 193 166 201 234 163 169
^^^ ^^^
When using tidy, it gives wired result:
$ cat test | tidy -quiet -numeric
[...]
µÜÒÝ•„£¨·½Á¦É꣩
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Notice the extreme big number pointed by ^^^?
Why can't tidy encode exactly as the "od -t u1" output, i.e., •„
instead of •...? It will give me trouble when the result is further
processed by other tools, e.g., Perl XML::XPath.
Moreover, after using the "-bare" option to "strip out smart quotes and em
dashes, etc.", the result is even more wired, even seems wrong to me:
$ cat test | tidy -quiet -numeric -bare
[...]
µÜÒÝ•"£¨·½Á¦É꣩
^^^^^^^^
[...]
Anybody has some comment on this?
Thanks
PS. to produce the test file:
echo '181 220 210 221 149 132 163 168 183 189 193 166 201 234 163 169' | perl -ne 'print chr $_ for split /\s+/' > test
tong
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Hugo Vanwoerkom: "Re: How to reinstall without changing anything?"
- Next in thread: michael: "Re: Is this tidy converting correct?"
- Reply: michael: "Re: Is this tidy converting correct?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
