 | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) Me too. --Todd (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Thanks guys. You realize, this would keep me away from my SW legos... :-P Would the "Xref:" header embedded into the LUGNET nntp messages work for a reference? e.g.: Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.faq:186 in the nntp message translates into: (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | Jeremy: (...) No. We should use full URL's, so we can refer to data outside Lugnet too. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Ahh, good idea. The URLs for the articles are less stable than the Xref lines are. For example, when the new web-interface/hierarchy is moved into place, shortly after that will come a remapping of all the article URLs (but the old ones will (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) I was afraid of that. :-, (...) I'm prone to just go with the simpler form, copying the X-Ref header, for several reasons: a) I don't have to enter the Web interface and search for messages to find the URL, b) The URL can be automagically (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Progress so far, and a new header —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | (canceled) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't understand the difference -- is it just how the text is formatted, or does that number do some magic? Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) It's a semantic difference. - 'References' refers to other articles (ancestors). - 'Xref' is self-referential and refers both to itself and to any other copies of the same article if it has been crossposted. So copying the 'Xref' header (and (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Progress so far, and a new header —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
