 | | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
It is summer time, not lego time (= winter time), so I haven't felt this before now. I haven't seen this in my newsreader, but I can imagine that it might look really funny/odd. But leaving that of, here is my first suggestion: I will only post (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Mo'betta Mo'betta pics of on biomechanicalbricks.com
|
|
Mo'betta pics of me, the Jamocklaquat, and the Little Bots Series. All New Photography! Please have a look. (URL) Brighter Jama Picture:> (URL) 7 Little Sort Bots:> (2 URLs) me:> More goodies soon. e <www.biomechanicalbricks.com> (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Do you have Lucida Typewriter? Try setting your fixed-width font to default to that...it's a bit easier on the eyes than Courier. (...) Well, the only consolation I can offer today is a promise that we're making movements towards CSS, which (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) I guess I don't see the advantage of this part, and I can't stand how when reading via the web it makes the listed posts look one way, and the posts themselves a completely different way. Plus, that fixed-width font is a killer on the eyes. (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) I agree (smiling). If you have scroll, of course, to read the reply, then it means that someone didn't prune the quoted text like they should have. --Todd (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
(...) Yes it did. BTW thanks for all the continued effort... I really like the abiltiy to format (etc...) the posts now. SteveB (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing FTX for discussion groups
|
|
... (...) Scrolling sucks! (he says smiling) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
