Subject:
|
Re: markup syntax for member pages
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:10:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> [...]
> Well, it's not really geared toward spiffiness. Boldface and italics and
> headers are functional tools to help convey semantic meaning in the text.
> So it's actually geared toward non-spiffiness, or, rather, simply toward
> nurturing the efficient expression and exchange of useful information. And
> raw HTML is just a drag (as in slowing) in that regard. Fortunately, there
> are places like geocities where people can put up a full-HTML page if they
> want glitz and spiffiness.
heh heh, well, I guess geocities is out of the picture now, given the bad
press they're getting:
http://www.sitepowerup.com/boycottyahoo/boycottyahoo.htm
Anyway, this whole recent Yahoo!/GeoCities stink yet another reason not to
do full HTML hosting here. Not out of fear, but out of wisdom. The more
fancy and creative that things can get, the more animosity is likely to brew
when the terms of service require an irrevokable royalty-free (non-exclusive
license) license of republishing rights, etc.
For example, no one typically worries about there ever someday being the
possibility of comprehensive newsgroup compilations distributed on CD-ROM,
but go to the other end of the spectrum and consider entire web sub-sites
distributed on CD-ROM or used in a promotional manner, and many people would
be likely to cause a stink about that, even if they'd agreed to it earlier.
And stinks are stinky, even if someone is stinking about something that's
invalid.
So the kinds of things that are really most attractive in the lugnet.com
view of the world are generally simple things: pages or snippets or bodies
of information which mainly benefit the community as a whole and which people
aren't going to feel particularly individually possessive about. If people
want to include personal stuff, too, that's perfectly OK, but the more
personal it gets, the more they have to understand that while they still own
it, they can't necessarily revoke it once they've submitted it.
Now I personally can't imagine something like a fictional work needing to
stay put if someone wanted to delete it, but I can certainly imagine things
valued highly by the community -- such as a FAQ or a generally-useful body
of data -- needing to stay permanently put, even if its original author
suddenly decided he/she wanted no longer wanted it to be a part of the
system -- or wanted to try to prevent it from being incorporated in a CD-ROM
compilation (or printed fan-zine or who knows what).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: markup syntax for member pages
|
| (...) they'll be OK. I see they've taken another step closer to this (the first step was to explicit state that they don't own the content, but that was actually a non-step). Now, they only claim a license to do whatever they want with the content (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: markup syntax for member pages
|
| (...) If HTML were chosen, then not only would it require a full-blown HTML parser/ validator to prevent garbage like <TABLE BORDER=8 CELLPADDING=10 BGCOLOR="#FF0000"><TR><TD> <FONT COLOR="#00FF00" SIZE="+4"><B> <BLINK>THIS IS MY <BIG>COOL</BIG> (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
