|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 156 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 121 of 156:
| 
Feb 28 19:02 UTC 1999 |
I'd have no huge objection to turning it off (there isn't a way right
now, but it isn't hard to add - eventually I plan to make it a setting
that fairwitnesses can fiddle with on a per-conference basis).
Frankly, I don't believe it will be a problem. Simple HTML gets
translated to plaintext just fine. Doing things like images and tables
well is enough extra work that few people will bother, and you won't
mind missing responses where people do them badly.
And I do agree with STeve - Grex has to keep exploring current
technology. We don't have to try everything that comes along, but we
have to be adverturous in trying things.
|
keesan
|
|
response 122 of 156:
|
Feb 28 23:03 UTC 1999 |
I would appreciate if people would not put anything in their responses that
cannot be easily accessed by dial-in users. If there is a link, make sure
that we can read the URL if we want to go look at it with lynx.
|
janc
|
|
response 123 of 156:
|
Mar 1 00:31 UTC 1999 |
One thing I want to see is something that does that automatically. If I
enter an HTML response like:
Visit my <A HREF=http://www.wwnet.net/~janc>home page</A>.
It should generate a plain text response for Picospan that looks
something like:
Visit my [http://www.wwnet.net/~janc] home page.
Of course, even now any picospan user can see the HTML version of any
response by doing, for example:
!extract -h agora 3 123
This will print response 123 of item 3 of the agora conference,
prefering the HTML version, if there is one (there isn't). Without
the -h flag it gets the plain-text version.
|
steve
|
|
response 124 of 156:
|
Mar 1 01:25 UTC 1999 |
I think what Backtalk is doing is perfectly reasonable. It takes
the html stuff and makes plaintext out of it, which is the proper
thing to do.
|
omni
|
|
response 125 of 156:
|
Mar 1 06:54 UTC 1999 |
And above all, disable the blink command. Not everyone is as stable
minded as me. ;)
|
jshafer
|
|
response 126 of 156:
|
Mar 1 15:43 UTC 1999 |
What he said. No blinking!
|
aruba
|
|
response 127 of 156:
|
Mar 1 16:27 UTC 1999 |
I'd like to announce that Grex had a great month, financially, in February.
See the treasurer's report for details (item:coop,80).
|
dang
|
|
response 128 of 156:
|
Mar 2 22:18 UTC 1999 |
I agree. No blinking.
|
gregb
|
|
response 129 of 156:
|
Mar 3 04:27 UTC 1999 |
I've been to other conf systems, like Electric Mind, that allow HTML
tags, and things seem to work out fine, for the most part.
One thing that could help, is to set up a conf. for those who want to
try out HTML. This will give people a place to get use to it before
taking it into the regular confs. Granted, not everybody will be so
accomidating, but I think the majority would.
Oh, and I agree with the others: <blink>NO BLINKING!</blink> (Yes, I
know it won't work.)
|
janc
|
|
response 130 of 156:
|
Mar 3 20:43 UTC 1999 |
When the new Backtalk goes live, it will have a feature in it that
allows fairwitnesses to disable HTML posting in their conference if they
so please. There are definately some conferences where HTML posting
would be very nice - web, auction, enigma and test come to mind.
The BLINK tag has been on our banned list since day zero.
However, animated GIFs are still possible.
|
danr
|
|
response 131 of 156:
|
Mar 3 22:54 UTC 1999 |
As soon as it's up, i think we should have a contest for the worst animated
gif. :)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 132 of 156:
|
Mar 3 23:37 UTC 1999 |
There's already a test conference, which could be used for trying out HTML
and whatnot.
|
jazz
|
|
response 133 of 156:
|
Mar 4 14:05 UTC 1999 |
Finally someone who bans blinking tags.
Now if only we could ban MIDIs entirely ...
|
remmers
|
|
response 134 of 156:
|
Mar 4 22:14 UTC 1999 |
Re HTML responses in Backtalk: I agree with STeve in resp:120 that this
should have its own discussion item. HTML conferencing would represent a
major change to the user interface, and like other major changes to Grex
- the internet connection, outgoing internet access policy, anonymous
web reading, etc. - there should be user discussion and input prior to
making a decision on installing it. Coop would be the appropriate
conference.
I will say that I tried out the 'backtalk' conference using the new
version of backtalk, and it really does do HTML.
|
janc
|
|
response 135 of 156:
|
Mar 4 23:34 UTC 1999 |
I've installed a much newer version of Apache on Grex. You shouldn't
notice any difference. If you do, let me know.
|
remmers
|
|
response 136 of 156:
|
Mar 6 20:58 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:123 - I notice that Backtalk doesn't process the first URL
correctly. It should treat the ">" as a terminator, but doesn't.
Jan has entered an item in Coop to discuss HTML in Backtalk postings.
It's item 82 (item:coop,82).
|
mwg
|
|
response 137 of 156:
|
Mar 10 14:49 UTC 1999 |
Unless Grex has plans to ban all non-HTML access, web pages should be the
only place it is allowed. While it is possible to read past the rubbish
when using telnet, I don't usually waste my time on it. HTML popping up
is a fairly swift way to chase me off a system.
|
remmers
|
|
response 138 of 156:
|
Mar 10 17:29 UTC 1999 |
Backtalk produces a plain-text version of each HTML response entered.
Picospan will always show you the plain-text version, so normally there
shouldn't be rubbish to read past.
I think there are some issues regarding HTML posting that warrant
discussion. As noted earlier, the discussion is happening in Item 82 of
the Coop conference (item:coop,82).
|
albaugh
|
|
response 139 of 156:
|
Mar 11 16:06 UTC 1999 |
I don't know how anyone "bans" a blink tag... Meanwhile, please note that
many animated .gif files regularly crash various versions of Netscape,
especially if used in combination with Javascript.
|
scott
|
|
response 140 of 156:
|
Mar 11 19:36 UTC 1999 |
Backtalk apparently (according to Jan) will be doing things like making sure
tags are closed, etc. Certainly if the HTML is submitted thru the Backtalk
interface it is possible to remove any blink tags before putting the stuff
into the file.
|
janc
|
|
response 141 of 156:
|
Mar 11 21:03 UTC 1999 |
Yup. Javascript in responses is also not going to work if the response
is submitted through Backtalk.
|
other
|
|
response 142 of 156:
|
Mar 12 02:11 UTC 1999 |
what will happen if lazily tagged html is entered through picospan? will
backtalk fix that in showing it, even though it won't be able to edit the text
for picospan readers to clean it up?
|
scott
|
|
response 143 of 156:
|
Mar 12 11:53 UTC 1999 |
Jan's version (heck, maybe I should let Jan answer questions about his own
software ;) ) will be putting the HTML in a different place than the Picospan
text.
|
other
|
|
response 144 of 156:
|
Mar 13 06:23 UTC 1999 |
i mean if somone is running picospan and enters an html response, say, without
proper close tags...
|
scott
|
|
response 145 of 156:
|
Mar 13 11:49 UTC 1999 |
I would guess the same thing that happens now... Backtalk doesn't actually
*do* anything, so you see the tags as is.
|
