 | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | (...) You R-ed C, Chris. Althought is't more correct to say that the missing edges are not *all* adjacent. But I'm a bit afraid that the dash and underscore charcters are to similar and could easely lead to confusion. Are there any other acceptable (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) Yes - I think the original intent of # was 'in two parallel groups'. How about '='? That will work in a URL. It is almost like two '-'s. Chris (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | (...) It would have been a nice character, but = is not allowed under MS-DOS The range of special characters possible with MS-DOS are: ! @ # $ % ^ & ( ) - _ { } : ' Which of these are HTLM friendly also ? With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) HTML can handle anything. So can HTTP, but of the characters listed above, I think it is only '-' and '_' which don't need special treatment. The next level of problems is that the parts tracker is implemented in Perl and running on a Unix (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) How about we stick with alphanumerics (case-insensitive) and '-' for now? We can explore other characters over time, if it becomes necessary. More likely, we'll (eventually) leave the 8.3 filename format behind. :\ Steve (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) I'd have to look at the code again, but there's no reason why it couldn't deal with anything :) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) True, but it'd probably be better to restrict ourselves to a limited set of characters that are well-supported in file and path names on different OS's and protocols. But you already knew that, right? ;) Steve (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) In another branch of this thread it was my understanding that we had agreement on renaming box3#8p.dat to box3u8p.dat. Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
