 | | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) I don't think I am. :-) I'm not saying that the end result of a 2x-downsampled 10x digital zoom will look any better in 24-bit color than a native 5x optical zoom would look in 24-bit color. It won't. What I'm saying is that a 2x-downsampled (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: What I made from the 4099 Robobots Designer Set
|
|
(...) Yeah! These are nice! Dang fleebnorks ruin everything! stuart (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.photography, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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: New Gear Boxes and Motor Systems
|
|
(...) Links in FTX require an opening < and closing >. Todd, perhaps you could turn on the same "www." and "(URL) recognition that plain text uses for FTX? Some sort of hard character return recognition would be nice too...I'm not in the habit of (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Hey, it gives me an 'é'! Cool! Two problems though: it's harder to remember 0233 than 'café', and I often work from a laptop, where the numeric keypad functionality is awkward (or maybe I've just never got used to it.) I'll force myself to use (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | FTX Feature Request
|
|
Todd - In FTX, can you add a feature for strikeout text? Perhaps -text- ?? Thanks! -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) My bad. Sorry about that. (...) I guess I have always seen the codes above 127 referred to as the 'Extended ASCII' set. Perhaps that's neither accurate nor official. Still... I'm really enjoying the results of these changes. All the best! (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
