 | | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) Parser? As in document validation or transmogrification? (...) Yup, but not in a bad way as long as some sort of backward-compatible non- CSS code (such as <B></B>) were used in combination with <P></P> for section titles. That is, on old (...) (26 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) But don't copy the name 'X-Ref' if you copy the data -- that would be wicked confusing because what you want is a reference to a prior article, and the 'X-Ref' header of NNTP articles *isn't* a reference to a prior article but rather an ID of (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) Nope (...) Why are 'Location' headers useful again? What do they do (as in an example) that an include mechanism (implicit or explicit or a mix-n-match index) can't do? How terrible is life without the 'Location' header? --Todd (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) Independent of the other issue, about representing arbitrarily URLs as Jacob suggested, yes, copying the X-Ref header char for char (anything to the right of the 'X-Ref:' part) is perfectly safe for this purpose. (...) Right now they're not -- (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) SO we just reserve H1 and H2 for the parser? I can live with that. (...) Is the "CLASS=y" attribute part of CSS? Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) Heh heh. Well, <H4> is typically the same size as the base font, but in bold, so I don't think anything but <H3> is needed, if that even is. Alternatives to <H3>x</H3> might be <P><B>x</B></P> or [maybe] better yet <P CLASS=y><B>x</B></P>...? (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) The more I think about it, the more I think that this is exactly what I'm oging to do. The "Reference:" header would be a fully-formed URL, while the "X-Ref:" header would tell the parser that it needs to be resolved into a LUGNET article URL. (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) Among other things, yes. Upper levels can benefit too, such as bringing in 'Location' headers (1). (...) No; the way I see it, the including file has priority. Fields brought in by an include would be overridden by fields already in the (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) True. How about H5 or H6, then? Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) I *think* I'm almost with ya on this... A couple more questions... Is the idea behind this so that lower levels can include headers from upper levels -- headers such as 'Topic-Level'? If so, then do the included headers override what's in the (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
