Subject:
|
Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 May 2003 03:17:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.publish, Brian H. Nielsen wrote:
> > Since you don't think most of the above are problems because they are not on
> > word boandaries, how do you reconcile that with FTX's support for bolding,
> > italicizing, or underlining part of a word, such as in the example in the FTX
> > quick start page? Are you planning on removing that capability?
>
> If // and ** proved superior to {} and [], then going back and removing {} and
> [] (and of course automatically converting existing pages to // and **) would
> certainly be an option.
I'm not sure what your above comment has to do with FTX supporting non-word
aligned positions for the formatting characters, no matter which character set
is used. I was attempting to point out that // and ** would seem to be more
troublesome since they are more common than {} and [] in normal text.
My other point was to ask for clarification of whether or not you were going
to remove support for non-word aligned formatting characters. I got the
impression from your prior examples that you were considering only formatting
characters that were word-aligned, unlike current FTX support for non-word
aligned formatting characters.
> > Posters having to go back and clean up formatting in messages they are
> > quoting seems like a major inconvenience. No matter what characters FTX
> > supports.
>
> But it's only an issue under one obscure set of circumstances: if (1) you
> are posting a reply to a plain-text message, and (2) you are posting your
> reply in FTX, and (3) the message you're replying to happens to contain
> instances of {} or [] or || and you don't want those to be misinterpreted as
> italics, bold, or computer text, or a <> surrounding a non-URL and you don't
> want that to be misinterpreted as a URL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in all
> other cases, there's no need to clean up anything.
Well, I was trying to put that in the context of it being more onerous if the
formatting characters // and ** are supported. They would seem to be more
likely to need cleaning up, and less obvious. Posters who do not take the time
to study and learn the in's and out's of FTX might get frustrated faster and
possibly be more reluctant to reply to FTX formatted messages.
I havn't tried replying in plain-text to an FTX formatted message, so I don't
know what kind of cleaning up would have to be done in that case. If you're
asserting that no clean up would be needed, that is good.
Brian H. Nielsen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
