 | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) I see. With extensive modifications, I assume? I'm sure there's a way to link libperl.so to CNews but that could be unweildy to say the least. (...) Sorry I can't view the FTX results of that on my browser. But I assume that's right. (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | top-posting (was: posting oddities)
|
|
(...) I'll do you even one better than that. Instead of moving your text to the bottom automatically and telling you that it has done this, it now simply tells you that you're going against netiquette by top-posting and it *suggests* that you move (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Badges, buttons, and the like...
|
|
(...) Has it done weird stuff before? Like on your desktop? (...) Ya, there is, but if the second HTTP POST comes in before the first one has had a chance to stuff a copy of the article in the "recently posted" area, then the test for duplicity in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Badges, buttons, and the like...
|
|
(...) Maybe that's my haywire mouse - the wiring's a bit screwy in it. Isn't/wasn't there a double-posting filter? -Tim (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Badges, buttons, and the like...
|
|
(...) Huh...me too. The webserver log shows a GET at 23:18:05 EST (that's clicking the Reply button), followed by a POST returning 12685 bytes at 23:18:51 (that's probably the Preview button), followed by 2 POSTS both returning 3023 bytes both at (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Badges, buttons, and the like...
|
|
(...) I wonder why this double-posted? I don't recall hitting post twice. -Tim (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) CNews. (...) Doesn't that look a bit redundant? /italics/ and *boldface* What do underlined underlines look like? Like this?-- _N_ew _E_ngland _L_EGO _U_sers _G_roup Not sure how either any of those are an improvement. --Todd (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) What NNTP server do you use? I was under the impression that it was written in Perl itself. [...] (...) How about a different interpretation - // and ** (and don't forget __ for underlining) might not be interpreted the same as the {} and [] (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) Yah. (...) By adding something at the bottom that doesn't look like a sig (i.e., something that doesn't begin with "-- "). Would you prefer a button-clickie or something to override it and say, "Yes, thank you, I know what I'm doing and I (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) How does it work now? Based on what the previous post was set to? That usually makes sense I guess, I just got bit by it. (...) in 7487... ((URL) the new content there is "in the below example..." so it belongs on top. That's where I put it. (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) Actually it makes perfect sense--and could be definitly rigged up with a polarity switch/train sensor/RCX. I like it. I like it alot. The only thing is that it's yet another RCX and I only own 4, 2 with the AC adapter. The gaps work remarkably (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) Unless there were a way to default it or make it more obvious...less surprises. (...) In 7486? You wanted to top-post 28 lines of new content atop 3 lines of original content? Not sure which article you're referring to. (...) There are ways (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | posting oddities (was: <dcx is cool!>
|
|
(...) Gotta remember to check the format box every time, I guess, I didn't want FTX for that post. While I have your ear, what's up with putting my text at the bottom? I know Steve B asked about it, but you can see that in this case, I clearly (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) (URL) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Even more Wow!! for your buck!!! was Re: Woo Hoo!!!!! (part deux...)
|
|
(...) Urp, in the below, when i posted it before, none of the urls are clickable! Sorry about that. And "snip" inside angle brackets IS clickable.... I'm confused. XFUT admin.nntp... (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
