 | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | (...) Here's a rough sketch: File A has these headers: Flarn: Gook Cheeseball: Snorkle Include: B Include: C File B has these headers: Flarn: Gobbledegook Slack: Snafu Snarf: Quest File C has these headers: Flarn: Vorlon Snarf: Wormy Queen: Keep (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) 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: Working sketch of FAQ item data format —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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: Working sketch of FAQ item data format —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Cool. I concur. (...) Um, I think it was for a possible alternative organization scheme, other than placement in a subdirectory. If we use index files instead, the Location header is not needed. Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| | | | |
