headers
Paul Hoffman | 6 Oct 2005 20:04
Picon

Off-topic: <at> 


It probably seemed so simple when we started using it...

<http://herodios.com/atsign.html>

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 6 Oct 2005 21:33

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It probably seemed so simple when we started using it...
Since the original form was both " <at> " and " at " it wasn't all that 
simple, even then.  Having to parse several characters ahead, for 
detecting the mailbox/host separator, was a royal pain in those days.  
Not at all clean.

Of course, such cross-cultural problems are hardly restricted to netascii.

I can never remember they windows key sequence for generating the Euro 
symbol, and somehow E100 doesn't work all that well.

d/
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 7 Oct 2005 02:52
Picon
Picon

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


Paul Hoffman wrote:

> <http://herodios.com/atsign.html>

Nice.  I'm not sure about the explanation for the German word
"Klammeraffe" (hanging monkey), so far I thought that it's a
pun:  " <at> " looks a bit like a narrow "(a)", and that would be
"Klammer-a(ffe)" or parenthesised a(pe)

<http://dict.leo.org/?search=klammeraffe>  Bye, Frank
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Laird Breyer | 7 Oct 2005 06:27
Favicon

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


On Oct 07 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>  
> > <http://herodios.com/atsign.html>
> 
> Nice.  I'm not sure about the explanation for the German word
> "Klammeraffe" (hanging monkey), so far I thought that it's a
> pun:  " <at> " looks a bit like a narrow "(a)", and that would be
> "Klammer-a(ffe)" or parenthesised a(pe)

Could it have something to do with "Papierklammer" (ie paperclip)?
The metal ones look like an elongated  <at>  sign.

--

-- 
Laird Breyer.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laird Breyer | 7 Oct 2005 06:41
Favicon

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


Apologies for the second post right after the first, but it occurred
to me that Klammer-affe might be a bastardization of "Affix Klammer",
ie a (paper)clip (Klammer means clip) used for an attachment (Affix in
German).

So the etymology might be Affix Klammer -> Affenklammer -> Klammeraffe. 
As I said in the other post, a paperclip looks like an elongated  <at>  sign.

Cheers,
--

-- 
Laird Breyer.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bruce Lilly | 11 Oct 2005 11:54
Picon

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


On Thu October 6 2005 15:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > It probably seemed so simple when we started using it...
> Since the original form was both " <at> " and " at " it wasn't all that 
> simple, even then.  Having to parse several characters ahead, for 
> detecting the mailbox/host separator, was a royal pain in those days.  
> Not at all clean.

Worse than that. The original (see RFC 561) was <SP> AT <SP> only, and
space was subsequently permitted within words (RFC 724 et seq until RFC
2822 eliminated it) or even within atoms (RFC 733 et seq ...), so
 at at at at at at at at
could be
 at <at> atatatatatat
or
 atat <at> atatatatat
or
 atatat <at> atatatat
...
or
 at <at> atat <at> atatat
or
 at <at> atatat <at> atat
...
(RFC 733 routing, syntax subsequently changed by RFC 822)

The original " at " coupled with subsequent introduction of space
within words and of routing led to unresolvable parsing ambiguities -- no
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alan Barrett | 11 Oct 2005 14:01
Gravatar

Re: Off-topic: <at> 


On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Worse than that. The original (see RFC 561) was <SP> AT <SP> only, and
> space was subsequently permitted within words (RFC 724 et seq until RFC
> 2822 eliminated it) or even within atoms (RFC 733 et seq ...),

I heve never before encountered the idea that space was ever permitted
inside words or atoms.  Could you cite the parts of the specs that you
think permit this?  (There might be bugs in the BNF, and it is possible
that such bugs might be used to support an argument about spaces in
words, but the text of the RFCs seems clear enough that spaces are
permitted in "reasonable places" such as between words or atoms.)

--apb (Alan Barrett)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane