 | | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) OK, that's fine. It's supposed to be readable as raw ASCII in newsreaders. (...) I'm not sure what you mean. Plain text doesn't imply assumptions about character sets. You can have UTF8 or US-ASCII or ISO-8859-1 all in plain text. All of the (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Unless someone go totally nuts with crazy table stuff, it should look just fine. (...) Yup! FTX was designed from day one (back in the summer of 1999) to be entirely readable as plain text. In fact, here is an example of an article I posted in (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
Popping in for a second. I *mostly* use a newsreader still, so much of this doesn't effect me, but I still think it's a cool move to add some more dimension to Lugnet. As for people worrying about large or animated sig banners... The community has (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) well - it'll display (btw, I got text/x-ftx to display too - mutt rocks)... but it won't "signify" anything but a plain text message. And considering that some of the FTX chars are NOT plain text, it'll be a lie. I think the best solution (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) This is terrible news! How is this going to be rendered on a text-based newsreader? Not everyone is using a GUI for NNTP you know! --Bill. XFUT: lugnet.admin.nntp (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's what I had remembered-- that Lugnet picked up on signatures at least when they adhered to the standard. I've never been one to take specific notice, but I was under the impression that most readers would automatically prepend "-- (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Now this is the stuff I'd like to see go away. I've never seen a post that is enhanced by 87 lines of text as a sig file. Pictures I can filter out if need be. Text is something I can't. -Dave (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) It's technically impossible, of course, to detect what a signature is. If you go by internet standards, then the line "-- " (that's two hyphens followed by a single space, followed by a newline character) is a standard signature delimiter -- (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Better, I suppose-- However, something that forced signatures to plain text might help too. That way at least only pictures that were part of the post content would show up. But yes, in general it might be nice to somehow restrict image size. (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Ya, the setting would have to go all the way down to zero, of course. --Todd (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
Quoting Todd Lehman <todd@lugnet.com>: (...) I, myself, wouldn't want to see *any*. An animated gif, no matter how small, is still terribly annoying. I suspect it won't be long before people have banners and avatars at the bottom of EVERY post, and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) If there were a settting where you could specify not to embed images above a certain size, would that work? --Todd (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Hmm...maybe Content-Type: text/x-ftx isn't the right thing to set. I didn't expect it to confuse NNTP clients...but now that you mention it, it makes sense. If it instead said Content-Type: text/plain what do you think would be a good header (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) I agree, while it's an interesting feature, I'd really rather there not be any images contained in lugnet posts. Is it really that hard to deep-link to a brickshelf image instead? It quite frankly draws your attention away from the text, and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Actually, could there be a cookie setting to turn them off (IE strip them out, not just show raw text) in the web interface? Personally, I never could stand signatures with images and all the other fancy, colorful junk that often gets thrown (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) I guess I'll reserve comment until I see how this gets used, but I'm really hoping it doesn't sound a death knell for use of news readers. One favor to ask though, while URL links show up as still clickable in a newsreader, all the nifty set (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
neat - can we make something that will filter out all the FTX in mail and NNTP? Currently, all the new posts show up as text/x-ftx, and until I tell mutt that that's plain text (with some noise), it doesn't display it at all. But cool for the web (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Outlook Express and LUGNet
|
|
I no longer have this problem. Jaco (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
I am very happy to announce three changes today to the LUGNET News web interface: Fixed-width font now used for plain-text messages. Once upon a time, when LUGNET first served up messages via the web, messages were displayed in a fixed-width font. (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: lugnet.build.aircraft
|
|
(...) If they're minifig scaled, can't they go in .Town, or maybe .modelteam if they're more detailed? I'm just thinking that .build.aircraft might be a bit specialized compared to stuff like .build.military, which encompasses military troops, (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
