 | | 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) True. How about H5 or H6, then? Cheers, - jsproat (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) I'm a bit nervous about the <Hn> family too...but some types of answers (see the LDraw FAQ for an example) can get pretty long and do benefit from little section headers, right? --Todd (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
