 | | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2)
|
|
(...) I'm speaking about a technicallity, the HTTP protocol, sometimes known as the web protocol. (see any URL, ex: HTTP:\\www.ldraw.org) (...) I absolutly agree ! (...) I never ment to SHOUT ? I don't know why, but it appears that here at lugnet, (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2) (fwd)
|
|
(...) I suppose that this could be discussed, but it wasn't what was originally being discussed. That's where the confusion came in. (...) I'm not understanding. (...) I realize that. I'm talking about large websites with their own domains. The (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2) (fwd)
|
|
(...) What I mean, and also what I tought others ment too, is that a download tool is usefull to download files (within a Directory and eventually under its subtree), if the files represent software programs or *.dat files or whatever, it should be (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2)
|
|
Yesterday I did some tests and I found out, that just the MFC-code is using the user-preferences for proxies and other internet-settings on NT and 98. So I feel at least under Windows I HAVE TO GO the MFC way :-( However a different point is that (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2) (fwd)
|
|
Rui Martins wrote in message ... (...) be (...) it >all boils down to files. I really don't get what you're saying. One was a previous idea for parts, which is what I told you. It was discussed, but I never told you in my email that we were *going* (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
