Cálem?
Borges & Irmão?
Casal dos Jordões?
Quinta das Herédias?
Kopke Quinta São Luiz?
Quinta de Vale Meão?
Messias Quinta do Cachão?
Poças?
Quinta do Convento de São Pedro das Águias?
All of which can be written equally functionally using the standard letters available on a keyboard.
This wizard should be for people who are comfortable keeping things functional and simple, not those who have nose bleeds caused by a missing squiggle.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:Thank you for stepping forward and for enduring the pain of convincing Julian that it is a good idea (although I suspect he remains unconvinced and is simply allowing it to happen).
I was mostly correct.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:This wizard should be for people who are comfortable keeping things functional and simple, not those who have nose bleeds caused by a missing squiggle.
Who are the sort of people who would copy-paste the name, and not notice the PostScript mis-rendering.
(Should I add code to the .ps to test for non-ASCII characters? Because they often won’t work.)
DRT wrote:This wizard should be for people who are comfortable keeping things functional and simple, not those who have nose bleeds caused by a missing squiggle.
Who are the sort of people who would copy-paste the name, and not notice the PostScript mis-rendering.
Would the Port taste any different? Would the world end if someone turned up with a placemat that had C*lem written on it that they hadn't noticed? If they did notice, would it take more than two seconds to realise that changing the second character to an "a" would solve the problem? This way of creating placemats is not for pedants.
jdaw1 wrote:(Should I add code to the .ps to test for non-ASCII characters? Because they often won’t work.)
No. But I know that won't stop you.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
jdaw1 wrote:If the user were to enter “Château Léoville-Barton”, it would be good if the software could convert that to [(Ch) /acircumflex (teau L) /eacute (oville-Barton)]. If I were to supply a table of unicode↔glyphs, would that be difficult?
Not difficult, but perhaps a feature for a subsequent release...
jdaw1 wrote:If the user were to enter “Château Léoville-Barton”, it would be good if the software could convert that to [(Ch) /acircumflex (teau L) /eacute (oville-Barton)]. If I were to supply a table of unicode↔glyphs, would that be difficult?
Not difficult, but perhaps a feature for a subsequent release...
The project manager in me loves that answer. Scope creep avoided: raise a change control if you want us to consider your idea. Excellent.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Cálem?
Borges & Irmão?
Casal dos Jordões?
Quinta das Herédias?
Kopke Quinta São Luiz?
Quinta de Vale Meão?
Messias Quinta do Cachão?
Poças?
Quinta do Convento de São Pedro das Águias?
You're not convincing me that DRT is wrong. (Interesting, my iPhone autocorrects DRT to Arafat. That would have changed the meaning of the sentence somewhat!)
I'm firmly in the pragmatic camp, as can be seen from the occasional hand-drawn sets of tasting mats I have used. I love the tasting mats prepared by a pedantic expert and enjoy their accuracy and aesthetic appeal but would also be happy using pragmatic tasting mats on informal occasions.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
I would stick to allowing A-Z,a-z,0-9 and spaces only for the first version.
Optionally, a validation check could confirm this, and if the user does use any characters outside that range, could warn that only that range is supported (as could a statement at the bottom of the page - or somewhere suitable).
In subsequent version such conversion could be added, if wanted, and the statement removed.
flash_uk wrote:Edit: and I should have mentioned, I have not yet included any data input validation routines. The pages currently assume the user is competent and isn't entering nonsense data.
I would suggest at least basic validation is performed, if only to prevent potential abuse (limited field lengths, use of only basic text chars etc).
