 | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) Nicer in what way? The web interface has to work hard to provide the same information-at-a-glance that Free Agent does. (...) Who ever said that an NNTP client has to be text-only? (hey, anyone know of one that isn't?) It'd be really cool to (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) The web interface is bandwidth-heavy and it hasn't much memory of _my_ actions. (...) Gnus isn't strictly text-only. Neither is Mozilla. Pine is text-only. (...) Are you in the mood to study how to add new modes to Emacs? Or do you think it is (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) I haven't looked at XUL writing, but I think it shouldn't be too hard for the java gurus. If I was going to write it, I'd probably try the Emacs way, with some lisp hackery. Or, better yet, write an NNTP proxy that will do the translation on (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) But which format would you translate it to? Wouldn't you have to translate the FTX articles to HTML to get the inlined images? And wouldn't that limit the practical number of NNTP clients slightly? - But of course not as much as implementing (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) I think if we have a proxy that understands FTX and can translate it, the output format shouldn't be set - have that part be pluggable, so you could have it output html, or plain text, or anything else we can think of. Just have the proxy (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) Sensible. (...) Why not associate the format with the user account? NNTP actually has authentication built in. It's just not very common to use it. With some accounts named "<format>reader", we can let people select the format they get the FTX (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
