 | | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) There's a couple reasons that it sounds complicated. First, even though it'll be simple on the outside, it's complicated on the inside, and I was describing the insides more than the outsides. Second, for stuff like this, it's often useful to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) Here ya go: (URL) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) Ohyah. For people who wanted to keep it *really* simple, they wouldn't even know that channels existed -- they could just read the Spotlight channel and wouldn't even know it's a channel -- it would just show up as a little list on the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) oh. What on earth do personal channels (or weblogs, for that matter) have to do with guestbooks? Well, they're almost exactly the same thing. The only difference, other than the minutiae of formatting, is who can read entries and who can write (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS output format (was: Re: Lugnet for beginners)
|
|
(...) I understood (and enjoyed greatly) what you were saying until there. I don't see it, could you please explain what you're thinking there? Sooo, we'll see all of this by say next Friday? ;) Ben Roller (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
