 | | Re: testing in rtl... —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | (...) As a person that reads the rtl group through email, I can see the FTX stuff getting very annoying. :-) All I get to see is the codes. And it's wrapping the urls enough that the mail client doesn't interpret the links. So how does this FTX (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | (...) This is [bold]. <lets you link to a web site> <<lets you show the viewers (using the web browser to see the picture right away)>> see the FTX guide... (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | | | (...) Not any more it isn't. :-) (...) I'm using email to post these messages. So far I haven't found anything that explains how you turn FTX on for email. Derek (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | | (...) well, I think it is because FTX is a resident "interpretive program" for LUGNET. The cool and easy effects happen only if you are using the web interface. Ben (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | | | (...) This is not about viewing, obviously there aren't any FTX capable mail readers out there. Its about posting. I'd like to be able to post FTX through mail. (or at least maintain the FTX formating in messages I reply to.) Todd has mentioned that (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm, I guess not!! :-) Except of cource if I reply to it with the web interface. Derek (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) It seems like there's a "is this FTX?" bit set for each message. Hence, every message is either flagged as plain text or as FTX. Since yours (I assume) comes in via SMTP, I think it must get automatically set to be plain text rather than FTX. (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It's a Content-Type header. The content type is set to 'x-ftx'...although this is causing some trouble for people so it'll probably change to 'text/plain' and a different header would be used. (...) If your newsreader or e-mail editor allows (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) Take 2... I like it Todd, don't change a thing... I notice that web-links in indented messages (from posting replies) aren't actually underlining... but I'm sure someone mentioned that elsewhere... Take care and keep up the great work. The (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Does it? From the sounds of things it seemed like people who read posts via NNTP or SMTP were just seeing the raw FTX codes rather than the real text-- is that only in some readers? IE is there something out there that recognizes that [foobar] (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I mean that sentences are still perfectly readable. (...) Right -- it's just an extension to plain text. (...) Not any more than a newsreader should recognize that: hello I'm going to *shout* now should change to: hello I'm going to shout now (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | (...) Interestingly enough my Outlook Express with the AddOn OE-Quotefix by Dominik Jain ((URL) showed your *shout* in boldface. Also _underline_ gets underlined for real. Unfortunately the Quotefix conventions for /italics/ and *boldface* don't (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Hey, that looks like a pretty neat program. If I ever go back to the DOS world, I'll definitely install that on OE. (...) I'm curious what Quotefix shows you for each of the following lines...could you tell me what it shows? My *all-time* (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | (...) I recommend it! So far it has given me no trouble, only benefits. BTW, Windows is no longer (since W98?) in the DOS world, the two have separated. On WinXP you can hardly say you have a DOS world... (...) all-time boldface Star Wars italics (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: testing in rtl... —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) [...] (...) Mozilla does this too (the *bold* and _underline_ and /italics/ convention, and the smileys). But I don't use Mozilla on Lugnet. I agree that FTX should translate {} and [] to // and ** when displaying in plain text, and I'm *not* (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) The problem with that is that articles are stored in the news server in their raw original format only. When they're displayed by the web interface, and the FTX content is rendered into HTML for viewing on a web browser, it's done so (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | | (...) I think you'll find too many anomalies if FTX supports // and ** directly. You have to also make sure you don't FTX format text that is not intended to be FTX formatted. Some examples to consider follow. For slashes: Valid web addresses: (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) That's what I used to think too -- but I'm not so sure anymore... (...) the double slash and (2) the http: prefix. (...) I've never seen anyone write anything like that before. But in any case, it's got two leading slashes instead of one. (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Since you don't think most of the above are problems because they are not on word boandaries, how do you reconcile that with FTX's support for bolding, italicizing, or underlining part of a word, such as in the example in the FTX quick start (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If // and ** proved superior to {} and [], then going back and removing {} and [] (and of course automatically converting existing pages to // and **) would certainly be an option. (...) But it's only an issue under one obscure set of (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure what your above comment has to do with FTX supporting non-word aligned positions for the formatting characters, no matter which character set is used. I was attempting to point out that // and ** would seem to be more troublesome (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh I agree that // and ** are potentially more troublesome than {} and [] in normal text -- and that's why {} and [] were chosen instead. But I think the "troublesome" part may be entirely solveable from a coding standpoint. (...) It depends. (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | (...) Can't speak for Mozilla, but OEQuotefix doesn't react on the above line (or any other of Brian's suggestions), it seems to only process special characters at the beginning, and ending, of a word, and does nothing if special chars overlap, like (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) What NNTP server do you use? I was under the impression that it was written in Perl itself. [...] (...) How about a different interpretation - // and ** (and don't forget __ for underlining) might not be interpreted the same as the {} and [] (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) CNews. (...) Doesn't that look a bit redundant? /italics/ and *boldface* What do underlined underlines look like? Like this?-- _N_ew _E_ngland _L_EGO _U_sers _G_roup Not sure how either any of those are an improvement. --Todd (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) I see. With extensive modifications, I assume? I'm sure there's a way to link libperl.so to CNews but that could be unweildy to say the least. (...) Sorry I can't view the FTX results of that on my browser. But I assume that's right. (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
