 | | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) While there is more color fideltiy at higher bit-depths, above a certain point the human eye can't tell the difference. 24-bit is also termed "true color" because it's 16.7 million color range is close to the limit of what the human eye can (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
(...) That makes sense. You still don't need the CRC, even if you keep the message edit section on the Message Preview page. In the bottom messge edit section just do the same thing as suggested for the message edit page - combine the post & preview (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
Quoting "Brian H. Nielsen" <70401.2635@compuserve.com>: (...) while that's workable, I like being able to edit while seeing the end result that caused my edit. Meaning if I'm trying to change some formatting, I wouldn't want to have to hit back, to (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
Quoting Todd Lehman <todd@lugnet.com>: (...) I'd think label it "Preview" on the initial submit, then "Preview/Post" in the preview page. JS would be difficult to deal with undone changes, as well as confusing - "There was the post button there, and (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
(...) You don't even need the CRC. Do what you said on the message edit page about combining post & preview so that there is only preview, but then on the Message Preview page remove the whole lower section containing the message edit box, preview (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
(...) Sounds great in theory, and I think the CRC is a great fallback check if JS isn't available, and I like that the CRC method is forgiving of undone changes... But if there were only one button, what would you label it? "Preview or Post"? One (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
(...) why use JS? just combine the post and preview button to one, and detect on the server if the data was changed. If it was, preview, if it wasn't (matches a CRC in a hidden form element), it posts. (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: New Gear Boxes and Motor Systems
|
|
Thanks, Todd (...) Actually I didn't noticed I was in FTX mode... BTW, could it be possible to keep a cookie with personnal preference about FTX ? While it can be very useful, I'd prefer to default to plain text for most ordinary messages ! (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Disabling HTML form button if any changes made to an edit box?
|
|
This must be easy with JavaScript, right?-- I'd like to disable a submit button (turn it gray out and non-clickable) in an HTML form if the user changes any data in an editable text field within the form. The editable text fields are of type <INPUT (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.html, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (22 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! (...) (22 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)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
