 | | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) And, I'd assume that there would be a generic or default setting for people who want to keep it really simple, right? Ben Roller (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) Actually, it -is- simple -- very simple -- I just gave a complicated programmergeek description, that's all. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
Huh? Sounds waaay too complicated for me. I subscribe to the KISS principle. Guess I'd have to see an actual example to see if it would be useful. My $0.02 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) ^^^^^^^ Er, by "freebie" I mean with no or relatively no extra coding . . . --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) Wait -- maybe instead of individual objects in the list having the flag on an object-by-object basis, maybe the lists themselves should have a list- global flag. That way, instead of each member having a single channel with some of the items (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) Taking this RSS/Channels thing a step further, here's a related possibility which applies the RSS suggestion to a more general problem domain: First, I'd like to scrap the current Spotlight (after a one-time data conversion to a new format, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) This also helps immensely with topical cross-linkages, for example the cross-ref link to (2 URLs) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) OK, splendid. (...) The .castle.org isn't necessary as a group per-se (it -could- be left empty, as .cad.dev.org is left empty above .cad.dev.org.ldraw), but it's necessary to at least exist as an intermediate level, for consistency and for (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Right on brotha;) I don't think that lugnet.castle.castleworld.admin will be around anytime soon;) I think that we MIGHT need an lugnet.castle.castle....off-topic type group, no? This way if and when something is up, we can talk about it (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Very stable. The site has a new link, but the name is to stay. (...) I agree with having it under .castle. So how about the following (just throwing out some suggestions ...): lugnet.castle - your main group ... lugnet.castle.org - a group for (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego sources in Canada
|
|
(...) Ooh! Good idea, John. (reposted to admin.general) James (URL) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Sounds like a good idea to me. The only thing I can see as being a quibble is that once the adminstrivia(1) is over with, then it becomes a really blurred line as to what goes where. Most Castle World content will be quite happy and on topic (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Oops (rereading what I wrote), I didn't mean to imply that a plain .castle.org group (with no .castleworld suffix) was a no-go because of that -- I was just answering the part about the feasability of moving messages. (...) Ya, that would (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) My thought was that if a while down the road, the name of Castle World was changed, and it became a problem with the newsgroup, it might not hurt to change the name of the newsgroup. Would it be possible to edit (automatically of course) all (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 4x2ReVu: 4950 Loader Dozer
|
|
(...) Easy there Selcuk, Nan did say, "no offense, but..." Isn't this sort of question just like asking someone if they're married or what their nationality is? He (like me) just noticed the term "bf." I don't know what a BF is either. Has the world (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to move a body of existing NNTP messages from one newsgroup to another group without completely destroying the normal functioning of the original group. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Well, another idea would be just lugnet.castle.org, and split it when a 2nd group comes along. As far as name stability, how hard is it to move all the messages from one group to another (other than that it may break certain references - (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) Ya, that would be the idea. :) --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: do we need lugnet.org.castle-world?
|
|
(...) I third the motion... (...) It's highly unlikely to change. There is literally no danger of TLC asking us to change it since no lego reference is made, and we all agreed long ago (I think) that a simplistic name would be the best. (...) Sure, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
