Subject:
|
Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:27:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
527 times
|
| |
|
|
David Schilling:
> If some special syntax is used, then it has to be
> something really simple, otherwise people won't do it.
Correct.
> 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 bother typing it often enough.
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).
> Also, any of these conventions means that older posts
> won't have the set numbers work as links.
Seriously. Lugnet has only existed for a year (or is it
two?). Within a year, it will only be a minor portion of the
articles, where this is a problem.
> What proportion of four digit numbers are actual sets?
About 10%?
> If a four digit number is found which IS a set, then I
> don't think it would hurt to display it as a link. If
> it's not a set, then don't make it a link.
What if is is both a part and a set number?
> With the set indication methods, (# or <>'s, for example)
> what should happen if there is no such set?
Nothing.
I like the "<set:ID>" better. It can also be extended with
"<part:ID>" for referring to parts.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL: http://hugin.ldraw.org/LEGO/Huse/ > --
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
