To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.nntpOpen lugnet.admin.nntp in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / NNTP / 1315
1314  |  1316
Subject: 
Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp
Date: 
Sat, 31 May 2003 18:27:51 GMT
Viewed: 
516 times
  
In lugnet.publish, Brian H. Nielsen wrote:
> 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.

Oh I agree that // and ** are potentially more troublesome than {} and [] in
normal text -- and that's why {} and [] were chosen instead.  But I think the
"troublesome" part may be entirely solveable from a coding standpoint.
> 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.

It depends.  If the advantages of simplicity of // and ** outweigh the
disadvantages of {} and [] (which are mainly that you might actually want to use
one of those characters in text once in a while) then it may actually be an
acceptable trade-off to drop {} and [] and lose non-word-aligned formatting of
italics and boldface.  I'm not saying it would be for sure, but it might be.  It
all depends on how troublesome {} and [] prove to be in the threaded messaging
context.

> 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 wouldn't add support for // and ** unless a proven parsing algorithm were
found that passed a huge suite of test cases with flying colors.  :-)
> 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.

Ya without any editing it just looks like regular text with a few special
characters thrown in in the case of italics and boldface.  Tables look kind of
weird.  Bulleted lists and section headings look great.  Underlining looks
great.  Hyperinks look great.

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)

31 Messages in This Thread:









Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR