Subject:
|
Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 May 1999 22:32:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1593 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.faq, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > Would an 'exclude' also be useful in addition to 'include'? (Both are
> > relatively easy to implement.)
>
> At what level would Exclude be in the way? Would you nix all items in the
> "excluded" file? Would it be selective, allowing certain headers (such as
> Subject) to remain? What purpose would it serve?
Oh, it was just a thought. I kind of like the simplicity of the robots.txt
format. You include and exclude things, and each layer modifies previous
layers. Kind of also like the way Unix directory permissions work.
One example purpose that an exclude might serve could be saying from the top
level that everything is included by default, but the .off-topic hierarchy
is excluded by default. That seems simpler to me than having each entry in
the .off-topic hierarchy state that it doesn't go into the root (below some
threshold).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
| (...) What you're talking about sounds more like an inherited directory filter than a header exclude. Hmmm, could this be solved by placing a token file at strategic spots in the directory structure? Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
| (...) At what level would Exclude be in the way? Would you nix all items in the "excluded" file? Would it be selective, allowing certain headers (such as Subject) to remain? What purpose would it serve? Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
