Subject:
|
Set Links (was Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:14:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> David Schilling:
> > With the set indication methods, (# or <>'s, for example)
> > what should happen if there is no such set?
>
> Nothing.
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. Obviously the link will only take you to a 'set not found' page,
though. Always having the syntax result in something that looks like a link
will make the idea of the syntax more universal. People will understand more
easily that this is the syntax to use as a set number.
If the decision is to go with a particular syntax (instead of creating links
for all four digit numbers that are sets), I suggest a decision be made soon
on what this syntax will be, and start encouraging people to use it, even
though the web viewer doesn't draw them as links yet. This way people will be
used to seeing it (and using it), and there will already be a large set of
posts that will work when this awesome new feature is finally supported!
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
