Subject:
|
Re: Raw FAQ data format (Was: Format of FAQ items)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:56:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@GEOCITIES.nomorespamCOM
|
Viewed:
|
2023 times
|
| |
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Sproaticus:
> > Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > All entries means that you claim that the including file was
> > > revised every time the included file was revised.
> > > Not good!
> > Not bad either. Wouldn't changing an included file imply that the including
> > file has also changed?
> No (but it would mean that it should be reprocessed).
> [snip]
> Does this make any sense?
Oh waitaminute. I think I see where the confusion is. I'm not suggesting
that the header text from the included file be inserted into the including
file. What I mean to say is that during processing of the files, when the
including file resides in memory, it would use headers in the included file
that are not already defined in the including file. The text in the file
would remain the same.
Some headers wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, such as Revision and
Subject. However, some -- such as Content-Language and Locations -- would
make wonderful use of Include.
> > > I prefer to use [Compose],[o],[r] - much faster.
> > Huh?
> Is that the sound you make until you see a DEC keyboard? :-)
Ooooooohhhhhh. :-, I thought it was some evil Emacs keystroke. :-P
I personally like the idea of keyboards capable of handling characters one
would find in most European languages, over the idea of the "standard"
American 102-key keyboard. Alas.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
"I prefer the term para-mental. It keeps me out of the loony bin."
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Raw FAQ data format (Was: Format of FAQ items)
|
| Jeremy: (...) I didn't think so. What I tried to explain was how the processing tools would see the file _after_ the "Include" header had been processed. (...) ~~~...~~~ This is the critical part. I hadn't noticed it earlier. (...) Yes. Play well, (...) (26 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Raw FAQ data format (Was: Format of FAQ items)
|
| Sproaticus: (...) Yes, but it is not equally clear. Please forget that I mentioned it. (...) No (but it would mean that it should be reprocessed). Imagine this: "translating.da": Content-Language: da Revision: Jacob Sparre Andersen, 1999-04-28 (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
