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: 
16 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 (...) (21 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
    

Custom Search

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