Geeking : 200


Off-Topic / Geek / 200	199 \| 201

Subject:	Re: markup syntax for member pages
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:18:04 GMT
Viewed:	9 times

In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Moseley writes: > Todd Lehman wrote in several messages ... > > Member pages on LUGNET will initially be text-based. • ... > > I'm lookin' for something simple, pretty, and intuitive -- something like > > this, or better: > > Hi, my name is Ed Boxer and I {really} love [Opera], [LEGO®], and > > [Boxing]! > > [Todd], {I} must have (missed the start <of this>, but why)? _All_ you're > doing is (forcing) people l{i}ke me to write <[pre>-processors] to remove > the [garbage] that (you{'}<ve)> let (l)users add. *_And*_ some "text" will > become unprintable (<DOS: [dir ([filespec])*]>, _for instance_) without > _escape chars_. *I* [have to say] that *I* find things like (this) paragraph > pretty [unreadable]. And if you translated it to HTML is would not markedly > improve, I venture. LOL!!! OK, I shouldn't've crossposted to .off-topic.geek without giving a link (with that weird URL thing I do) to the top-level node in the thread, explaining what this was all about. Here's that: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=1977 BTW, one clean way to do lines like your filespec example is to mark pre- formatted and unencoded text (like code chunks, for instance) with a vertical bar followed by a space in column 1. So your paragraph above could be written thusly: ---begin--- [Todd], {I} must have (missed the start <of this>, but why)? _All_ you're doing is (forcing) people l{i}ke me to write <[pre>-processors] to remove the [garbage] that (you{'}<ve)> let (l)users add. *_And*_ some "text" will become unprintable... | <DOS: [dir ([filespec])*]> ...without _escape chars_. *I* [have to say] that *I* find things like (this) paragraph pretty [unreadable]. And if you translated it to HTML is would not markedly improve, I venture. ---end--- And (chuckle) *of course* you're going to find that paragraph pretty unreadable, because no one in their right mind would mark up text that insanely much, and of course it'll not be a marked imrovement as HTML. Heh heh, funny guy. :) At least it's still semi-understandable in the above markup. Here's how awful it looks in HTML, anyway (with attempted guesses at what you meant by < > and _): ---begin--- Todd, I must have (missed the start <A HREF= "http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2108">of this</A>, but why)? All you're doing is (forcing) people like me to write <pre>-processors to remove the garbage that (you'<ve)> let (l)users add. *And* some "text" will become unprintable... <CODE><DOS: [dir ([filespec])*]></CODE> ...without escape chars. *I* have to say that *I* find things like (this) paragraph pretty unreadable. And if you translated it to HTML is would not markedly improve, I venture. ---end--- I'd hate to see that on the screen. :) > Note: This bit "(<DOS: [dir ([filespec])*]>, _for instance_)" without the > font chars is "(DOS: dir [filespec]*, for instance)". > > I guess what I'm saying is that any format can be mangled, the trick is to > make it hard to mangle. Either by cutting features, or choice of control > chars. Since this is 'net, I suggest either allowing only a micro-HTML > subset (like P,B,I,U and perhaps UL), or using something a little odd as > an escape character to control formatting. Using different brackets is not, > IMO, that. If you're using escapes it's probably better to use optional > explanatory text: |bold|THIS IS SHOUTING| is the same as |b|SHOUTING|, > and make two escapes the escape character. > > I personally tend to say that most users will be either geeks, or confused. > There's a fairly small subset of "other" who will be able to learn a simple > interface *and* will be prepared to RTFM in order to do so. Having played > on FIDONET and early HTML, I expect that subset to be drowned out by the > "confused" group asking FAQ. "Confused" people really won't need to use anything other than just plain paragraph-based text. For them, boldface and italics will be an advanced feature. --Todd

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: markup syntax for member pages
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) We aim to amuse. (...) Hmm. Makes a little more sense now. (...) The trouble is that they will still ask how the "elite" people get their special powers to do formatting, and whine when their malformed efforts (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: markup syntax for member pages
Todd Lehman wrote in several messages ... (...) ... (...) [Todd], {I} must have (missed the start <of this>, but why)? _All_ you're doing is (forcing) people l{i}ke me to write <[pre>-processors] to remove the [garbage] that (you{'}<ve)> let (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

31 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

Custom Search