 | | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) I was thinkin' thumbnails along the bottom or side wouldn't get in the way too much, maybe, if there were false positives... --Todd (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) Down the side would work, especially as this is a web interface thing - I don't know about other people, but I've got a lot of screen real estate doing nothing in messages... My major concern with that would be loading times. The S@H specials, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) That's true. I'm also thinking outside of the web interface.... If I have some newsreader which I want to set up to react to set numbers, it'd be nice if they were distinctly identifiable. (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) I don't like the idea of thumbnail *pictures* automatically showing up beside messages. Purely iconic links would be OK. I do like the idea of a syntax that will get automagically expanded from something like LS#6077 to a hyperlink to the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) I'd be happy with LS#\d+ as the standard way to write the set numbers. Unlike URLs, there's not any confusion over whether a . is part of the URL or not, etc. Todd, you mentioned that lego set numbers are actually strings. Do they contain (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) I was thinking this could be easily done if people used a rail/number (#) sign before the set number. That way, the system finds only numbers after that sign. Just a thought. -Shiri (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) Definitely helps. But there's still lots of other possible matches for that. (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) If some special syntax is used, then it has to be something really simple, otherwise people won't do it. Using either #8880 or <8880> as a way of indicating set numbers would be okay, but anything more and people won't remember it, or won't (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
David Schilling: (...) Correct. (...) The first one is slightly too general. People do refer to part #3001 quite often (but it is mostly other parts that are referenced by number). (...) Seriously. Lugnet has only existed for a year (or is it two?). (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) And it does mimic the schema for URLs. ( <URL:(URL) ) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
|
(...) I agree. The fact that the functionality might not be retroactive for old posts is not a problem. (...) True. Or, the suggested LS#xxxx nomenclature could be modified to handle parts lookups -- LP#yyyy would produce a hyperlink to LEGO part (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Set Links (was Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99)
|
|
(...) URLs that point to non-existant sites are still displayed as links, though. If a number is indicated by someone to be a set number using whatever syntax, but there is no such set (or at least not yet) I think that it should still be a link. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
