 | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) 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 (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) Er... the slurpage stage whereupon the headers and body are transformed into HTML. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) I don't understand the difference -- is it just how the text is formatted, or does that number do some magic? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) Parser? As in document validation or transmogrification? (...) Yup, but not in a bad way as long as some sort of backward-compatible non- CSS code (such as <B></B>) were used in combination with <P></P> for section titles. That is, on old (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) 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 (25 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) 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 -- (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) SO we just reserve H1 and H2 for the parser? I can live with that. (...) Is the "CLASS=y" attribute part of CSS? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) Heh heh. Well, <H4> is typically the same size as the base font, but in bold, so I don't think anything but <H3> is needed, if that even is. Alternatives to <H3>x</H3> might be <P><B>x</B></P> or [maybe] better yet <P CLASS=y><B>x</B></P>...? (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Tags
|
|
(...) I pretty much agree with Todd, except for the H3 -- I'm personally nervous to allow any H elements. As for attributes, I say allow them with the disclaimer that we will ignore them unless we're surprised otherwise. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Tags
|
|
(...) That sounds like a pretty good list. Also need: - <I> and <B>, - <TT> and possibly <VAR> for things like command lines, program names, and newsgroup names, - <BR> for breaking closely-spaced runs of lines like command line sequences, - (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Progress so far, and a new header
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
