 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
