 | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) Can't speak for Mozilla, but OEQuotefix doesn't react on the above line (or any other of Brian's suggestions), it seems to only process special characters at the beginning, and ending, of a word, and does nothing if special chars overlap, like (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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. (...) It depends. (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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. (...) But it's only an issue under one obscure set of (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) That's what I used to think too -- but I'm not so sure anymore... (...) the double slash and (2) the http: prefix. (...) I've never seen anyone write anything like that before. But in any case, it's got two leading slashes instead of one. (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) I think you'll find too many anomalies if FTX supports // and ** directly. You have to also make sure you don't FTX format text that is not intended to be FTX formatted. Some examples to consider follow. For slashes: Valid web addresses: (URL) (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) The problem with that is that articles are stored in the news server in their raw original format only. When they're displayed by the web interface, and the FTX content is rendered into HTML for viewing on a web browser, it's done so (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) That might help, but I think it would be better to just replace the FTX code with the URL directly. (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) That would work decently. You would want to insert those between paragraphs (as best as you could). Of course they could also become invisible to FTX users when a NNTP user quotes the message (as I have carefully done with this message). Frank (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) What if lines beginning with "#" in FTX denoted comments, and the URLs of referenced resources were summarized in a comment block? In other words, if someone said [LEGOSet 6954_1] and [LDrawPart 3004:4] it would append something like this: # (...) (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Yes, but the problem is that not all FTX extensions work as well as others. For example the set and part database items, polls, etc. will not display properly on a plaintext system. For those you should convert the FTX code to an URL that (...) (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) That's a really good point, and so true!!! We gotta help each other out. Gotta love it. Free thought and brick treats while in the machine. I get the job done and always manage in a little fun. No shame there. e (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
Good suggestion. While sometimes I may like to play, it could annoy some people unintentionally, so by all means; if an FTX filter for E-mail and NNTP could be implimented - That would be great. I'm no expert, but the thought is there. e (...) snip (...) (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) OK, I can think of four different RFC-2045 compliant workarounds: 1. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" (FTX) 2. Content-Type: text/plain (FTX); charset="ISO-8859-1" 3. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; x-ftx=1.0 4. (...) (22 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (22 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
