Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]
*I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292054] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 03:23
Gid  
I'm curious to see what Googlegroups makes of the old fashioned *TAGS*
we used to have.. anyone want to follow up on GG and see what happens
to these?..
Re: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292055 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 03:25
Gid Holyoake  
In article <1151457800.284527.27210 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Gid
generously decided to share with us..

> I'm curious to see what Googlegroups makes of the old fashioned *TAGS*
> we used to have.. anyone want to follow up on GG and see what happens
> to these?..

Ooh.. quick peering..

Gid
Re: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292056 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 03:27
Gid  
Snippetry..

> Ooh.. quick peering..

>From here these seem to work better..

Should we go back to them?..

Gid
Re: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292096 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 09:02
PeterH  
It all started on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:27:53 -0700, when Gid wrote:

> Snippetry..
>
>> Ooh.. quick peering..
>
>>From here these seem to work better..
>
> Should we go back to them?..

Why not? And, out of interest, -TAGS- appear to be working fine on
rec.music.tori-amos.

There is evidently some kind of conspiracy afoot against the use of square
brackets.


...PeterH
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292106 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 09:02
jester  
On 27 Jun 2006 18:27:53 -0700, Gid
<gholyoake [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>Snippetry..
>
>> Ooh.. quick peering..
>
>>From here these seem to work better..
>
>Should we go back to them?..

Didn't we move away from them because they were messing up some people's
filters by being a wildcard character?
Maybe we should picksomething else, like -

--
Andy Brown
Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis.

It makes sense, when you don't think about it.
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292109 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 09:02
Arwen Lune  
In article <slrnea4fma.eck.usenet [at] angel.jester.nu>, jester
proclaimed...

> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -

|A|
!R!
/M/
_C_

?

Cheers,
Arwen

--
"Bother," said Pooh. "Stop blowing holes in my ship!"
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292391 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 14:37
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Arwen Lune wrote:
> jester proclaimed...
>
>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>
> |A|

That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
deactivated tags.

> !R!

Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.

> /M/

Maybe.

> _C_

Not IMO a good idea to use a symbol that's often used to delimit book
titles.

<F> I would accept, although it's a little ugly.

If this gets to the voting stage, I may be willing to help, though of
course I can't formally volunteer before we discuss how voting should
work, and that's a while off yet.

My prior experience here is as follows. Some time ago, I oversaw an
election on another group, and the way I handled *that* was: (1) I
designed a form that enabled people to list their preferences easily;
(2) The form converted each vote to a line on a secret text file
(along with the voter's name as a measure of protection against
multiple submissions); (3) I copied and pasted the text file into
http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/ and told it to figure out the
winner using the Condorcet voting method (beatpath winner variation).

AFP's needs might be different, but I would recommend the use of that
website if there are more than two candidates in the end.

Adrian.
Re:[M] -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292403 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 15:18
Orjan Westin  
8'FED wrote:
> Arwen Lune wrote:
>> jester proclaimed...
>>
>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>>
> |A|
>
> That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
> deactivated tags.

But this creates a problem when writing posts in which a tag is at the
beginning of a line, as the pipe is occasionally used as an indentation
character, and recognised as such by some newsreaders (including OE with
QuoteFix).

>> !R!
>
> Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.

There are plenty of keyboard layouts where the pipe (|) is as hard or
harder to type than the bang (!). On a Swedish Windows keyboard, for
instance, the pipe requires the use of the alt-gr key.

My objection to the bang is that to me the above translates to "not
relevant not". Given the number of programmers with C-family language
background here, this might be inadvisable.

>> /M/
>
> Maybe.

Or /M\ perhaps? (No, not seriously.)

>> _C_
>
> Not IMO a good idea to use a symbol that's often used to delimit book
> titles.

Agreed.

> <F> I would accept, although it's a little ugly.

Well, it would make the tags look like *ML tags, but would GG be happy
with it?

Personally, I think the dash (-G-) is be best one. It could be
deactivated with:
* tilde (~G~ being wavy and uncertain) or,
* plus (+G+ being crossed over) or,
* the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in half).

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292408 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 15:36
Kevin Golding  
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> once did write....
>8'FED wrote:
>> <F> I would accept, although it's a little ugly.
>
>Well, it would make the tags look like *ML tags, but would GG be happy
>with it?

Well they seem to cope fine with <g> and <snip> and other faux tags. Of
course people would wonder if we were all grinning at <G>ames threads
and anything <I>rrelevant might be made italic.

>* the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in half).

Diamond idea - it's a caret btw.

Just 'cause we want choice, choice and more choice! Curly braces could
always be promoted from "was" to "is". They're worked fairly
comfortably in that context so, in theory at least, people shouldn't
struggle quite as much as some options.

Caomhin
Re: Re:[M] -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292409 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 15:43
Arthur Hagen  
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>> Arwen Lune wrote:
>
>>> !R!
>
> My objection to the bang is that to me the above translates to "not
> relevant not". Given the number of programmers with C-family language
> background here, this might be inadvisable.

Hey, many of us are old enough to read the above as a mail relay...

> * the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in
> half).

Circumflex or caret, depending on use. Note that your own argument can be
used against that one, as it too reads as "not G not"...

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: |I| testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292412 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 16:01
PeterH  
It all started on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:07:00 +0930, when 8'FED wrote:

> Arwen Lune wrote:
>> jester proclaimed...
>>
>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing up some
>>> people's filters by being a wildcard character? Maybe we should
>>> picksomething else, like -
>>
>> |A|
>
> That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
> deactivated tags.
>
>> !R!
>
> Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.

Speaking of strains on fingers, I'd prefer to be able to keep the shift
key held down while typing the entire tag (instead of having to engage it
for the meat in the middle) - the square brackets around the (old?) tags
were an especial pain.

Also, it might be a good idea to have a look at the tags again so that the
letters chosen keep to a certain, predefined area of the keyboard: say I
for irrelevant, O for off-the-wall, and P for Pratchett-related.


...PeterH
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292413 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 15:57
Orjan Westin  
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>> Arwen Lune wrote:
>>
>>>> !R!
>>
>> My objection to the bang is that to me the above translates to "not
>> relevant not". Given the number of programmers with C-family
>> language background here, this might be inadvisable.
>
> Hey, many of us are old enough to read the above as a mail relay...

Yes, the old bangpath, that's true. Personally, the programming not
meaning is the one I encounter more frequently.

>> * the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in
>> half).
>
> Circumflex or caret, depending on use. Note that your own argument
> can be used against that one, as it too reads as "not G not"...

Well, yes, that would be quite fitting for a deactivated tag, wouldn't
it?

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292415 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 16:09
SteveD  
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:18:02 +0100, "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com>
wrote:

>Personally, I think the dash (-G-) is be best one. It could be
>deactivated with:
>* tilde (~G~ being wavy and uncertain) or,
>* plus (+G+ being crossed over) or,
>* the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in half).

Circumflex or caret?

Just to throw in a weird option, how about the equals sign? =G=

(Yes, I agree the single dash looks cleaner.)


-SteveD
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292425 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 16:43
Stacie Hanes  
Arwen Lune wrote:
> In article <slrnea4fma.eck.usenet [at] angel.jester.nu>, jester
> proclaimed...
>
>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>
>> A|
> !R!
> /M/
> _C_

/A/

?
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292426 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 16:46
Stacie Hanes  
Anastasia wrote:
> Arwen Lune wrote:
>> In article <slrnea4fma.eck.usenet [at] angel.jester.nu>, jester
>> proclaimed...
>>
>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>>
>>> A|
>> !R!
>> /M/
>> _C_
>
> /A/

Huh. Sorry to follow self, but on my draft that A has a forward slash / on
each side of it, and when I read the output as a post, the A is italicised.
So never mind, as that's probably indicitave that it wouldn't work for
*someone*.
Re: [I] Emphasis in text (was testing a new tag) [message #292429 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 17:03
Gideon Hallett  
Anastasia wrote:

> Anastasia wrote:
>> Arwen Lune wrote:
>>> In article <slrnea4fma.eck.usenet [at] angel.jester.nu>, jester
>>> proclaimed...
>>>

>> / A /
>
> Huh. Sorry to follow self, but on my draft that A has a forward
> slash / on each side of it, and when I read the output as a post,
> the A is italicised. So never mind, as that's probably indicitave
> that it wouldn't work for *someone*.

The Usenet conventions on this sort of thing (see RFC 1855) are
I /think/ based on real printer's marks, AICBW.

/ <letter> / reads as 'make this italic'

* <letter> * reads as 'make this bold text'

_ <letter> _ reads as 'underline this'

(no spaces, mind you)

A number of different Usenet clients will follow the above rules
automatically.

cheers,

Gideon.

--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
Re: [I] Emphasis in text (was testing a new tag) [message #292432 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 17:31
Orjan Westin  
Gideon Hallett wrote:
> Anastasia wrote:
>> Anastasia wrote:
>
>>> / A /
>>
>> Huh. Sorry to follow self, but on my draft that A has a forward
>> slash / on each side of it, and when I read the output as a post,
>> the A is italicised. So never mind, as that's probably indicitave
>> that it wouldn't work for *someone*.
>
> The Usenet conventions on this sort of thing (see RFC 1855) are
> I /think/ based on real printer's marks, AICBW.
>
> / <letter> / reads as 'make this italic'
>
> * <letter> * reads as 'make this bold text'
>
> _ <letter> _ reads as 'underline this'

Almost. A typographer wouldn't ever underline a word, so the underscore
was used to indicate extra emphasis, which was usually achieved by
putting it in italics. The /italics/ and *bold* are internetty
extensions based on this tradition, because in cyberspace, no-one will
scream at you for underlining text.

Oh, and "printer's mark" is usually meant to refer to the device, logo
or coat of arms of a printer. ITYM "typographer's mark".

BICBW, IANAT.

Richard?

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292434 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 17:23
esmi  
on 28/06/2006 14:43 Arthur Hagen said the following:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

>> * the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in
>> half).

> Note that your own argument can be
> used against that one, as it too reads as "not G not"...

Or 'beginning of line' in a regexp.

esmi
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292440 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 18:14
Arthur Hagen  
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> on 28/06/2006 14:43 Arthur Hagen said the following:
>> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>>> * the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in
>>> half).
>
>> Note that your own argument can be
>> used against that one, as it too reads as "not G not"...
>
> Or 'beginning of line' in a regexp.

Not always. Think about what '^G^[^G^]^G^' means in regexp.

Here, have a cup of coffee -- the headache will go away soon... :-)

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292441 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 18:19
Arthur Hagen  
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> on 28/06/2006 14:43 Arthur Hagen said the following:
>> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>>> * the hat thingie I've forgotten the name of (^G^ being broken in
>>> half).
>
>> Note that your own argument can be
>> used against that one, as it too reads as "not G not"...
>
> Or 'beginning of line' in a regexp.

Sorry for replying twice, but I just had a sip of coffee, and it dawned on
me that characters that /do/ have special meanings in regexps can be a
potential problem, because quite a few client filters grok regexp. You then
have to toss in a lot of escapes to get the filters to work as intended,
which could be frustrating for the less technically inclined.

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292446 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 19:02
Orjan Westin  
Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
> I just had a sip of coffee, and it
> dawned on me that characters that /do/ have special meanings in
> regexps can be a potential problem, because quite a few client
> filters grok regexp. You then have to toss in a lot of escapes to
> get the filters to work as intended, which could be frustrating for
> the less technically inclined.

Yes, I believe that was one of the reasons for changing the tag format
from *T* to [T] in 1997. So, what characters are unsuitable? I haven't
done much regexping, but dredging the depths of my memory I seem to
recall that ^*/| are used. Any others?

I guess both $ and % should be avoided, too, now that I think of it.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292448 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 19:07
steelcat  
In article <e7tt34$2etf$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>,
"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:

>Arwen Lune wrote:
>> jester proclaimed...
>>
>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>>
>> |A|
>
>That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
>deactivated tags.
>
>> !R!
>
>Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.

That's interesting, why too much strain? I don't know what an antipodean
keyboard is like, but on mine [*] ! is left-hand, pinky and
next-to-pinky-finger (SHIFT-1), while | is right-hand, pinky and
next-to-pinky-finger (SHIFT-\). If anything, | is more difficult since the
keys are too close together for comfortable simul-tapping.

[*] UK but Mac layout, so probably somewhere between standard UK & US
layouts.

Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Two by two, hands of blue...
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292458 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 20:30
Arthur Hagen  
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>
>> I just had a sip of coffee, and it
>> dawned on me that characters that /do/ have special meanings in
>> regexps can be a potential problem, because quite a few client
>> filters grok regexp. You then have to toss in a lot of escapes to
>> get the filters to work as intended, which could be frustrating for
>> the less technically inclined.
>
> Yes, I believe that was one of the reasons for changing the tag format
> from *T* to [T] in 1997. So, what characters are unsuitable? I
> haven't done much regexping, but dredging the depths of my memory I
> seem to recall that ^*/| are used. Any others?
>
> I guess both $ and % should be avoided, too, now that I think of it.

Basic regexp:
^ is start of line
$ is end of line
\ is an escape character
.. is a wildcard character
* means "0 or more occurrences of the preceding unit"
\(...\) is a subexpression
[...] is a bracket expression. [I] means "any one of the character I", but
[ANNOUNCE] really means "any one of the characters A, C, E, N, O or U".

Some characters like ^-:. have special meanings inside a [...] construct
only.

Extended regexp:
? means "0 or 1 occurrences of the preceding unit"
+ means "1 or more occurrences of the preceding unit"
{N,M} means "From N to M occurrences of the preceding unit"
(...) is a subexpression
| means "or"
% means "null string"

The (probably) safe ones are '"~` [at] #&_<>;:!/ although I'd avoid some
constructs like:

`w`

.... just in case someone parses regexp through a shell.

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292467 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 21:06
esmi  
on 28/06/2006 18:02 Orjan Westin said the following:

<snip>
> I haven't
> done much regexping, but dredging the depths of my memory I seem to
> recall that ^*/| are used. Any others?

$ and % as you mentioned plus:

?+-.{}[]()*\

I know Xnews allows you to setup regexp filters. Don't know what other
current news clients do, though.

esmi
[M] was *I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292470 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 21:24
Karen  
In article <pan.2006.06.28.07.22.22.214207 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
<peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes
>It all started on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:27:53 -0700, when Gid wrote:
>
>> Snippetry..
>>
>>> Ooh.. quick peering..
>>
>>>From here these seem to work better..
>>
>> Should we go back to them?..
>
>Why not? And, out of interest, -TAGS- appear to be working fine on
>rec.music.tori-amos.
>
>There is evidently some kind of conspiracy afoot against the use of square
>brackets.


Good lord - I'd completely forgotten that rmt-a used the same tags as
afp. Around about the mid '90s there was a noticeable overlap in posters
for a while. (Midnight Tree Bandit springs to mind - is he still on
rmt-a?).
Obviously there still is some overlap between the groups :)


I thought they used asterisks as well though? Did they change for the
same reasons or just since Google groups? Have the dashes continued to
work through all iterations of Google groups so far? I do remember
seeing some of the same tag related 'discussions' there :)

When Google groups first became an issue I tried quite a few
combinations of tags/following characters. However the main problems
were not actually eliminating all the characters which were likely to
fall foul of filters at the client end or elsewhere - the big problem I
had was that the behaviour of Google *changed* over time.

Several times I thought I had an answer but then a couple of months
later I would hit a problem as Google kept changing. That is partly why
I never proposed anything in the end - I just didn't get a successful
solution which stayed successful. I honestly can't recall trying dashes
on either side, it doesn't look hideous at least. It is used for
commenting in some of the software I use so its possible I mentally
eliminated it.

If anyone has an up to date test of the potential characters which
actually works with Google and wouldn't fall foul of standard software
solutions it would be very useful.

--
Karen/hypatia Karen [at] lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org

Discworld Convention 2006, August 18-21, http://www.dwcon.org
Re: [I] Emphasis in text (was testing a new tag) [message #292481 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 22:17
Lesley Weston  
in article e7u5o3$2m9f$1 [at] mud.stack.nl, Gideon Hallett at diogenes [at] freeuk.com
wrote on 28/06/2006 8:03 AM:


<snip>

> The Usenet conventions on this sort of thing (see RFC 1855) are
> I /think/ based on real printer's marks, AICBW.
>
> / <letter> / reads as 'make this italic'
>
> * <letter> * reads as 'make this bold text'
>
> _ <letter> _ reads as 'underline this'
>
> (no spaces, mind you)
>
> A number of different Usenet clients will follow the above rules
> automatically.

I'm sure you're right about that being Usenet practice, but those weren't
the conventions used by printers and sub-editors when I was marking up text
for scientific journals at Pergamon press, long ago. Those were: a single
underline for italics, a double underline for small caps and a triple
underline for full caps. Bold was a wavy line, I think, but it was a long
time ago and I'm not sure.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [M] (M) a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292493 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 22:34
matt  
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:22:26 +0200, Peter Davies wrote:

> It all started on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:27:53 -0700, when Gid wrote:
>
>> Snippetry..
>>
>>> Ooh.. quick peering..
>>
>>>From here these seem to work better..
>>
>> Should we go back to them?..
>
> Why not? And, out of interest, -TAGS- appear to be working fine on
> rec.music.tori-amos.
>
> There is evidently some kind of conspiracy afoot against the use of square
> brackets.

Why has no-one mentioned round brackets? (A) (I) etc. They're easy to type
for everyone (I think). If there's some unseen problem (unseen by me, that
is) then I vote for <M> (as mentioned elsewhere).

--
Matt
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292501 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 22:57
elfin  
On 28/06/2006 20:06, esmi wrote:
> on 28/06/2006 18:02 Orjan Westin said the following:
>
> <snip>
>> I haven't done much regexping, but dredging the depths of my
>> memory I seem to recall that ^*/| are used. Any others?
>
> $ and % as you mentioned plus:
>
> ?+-.{}[]()*\
>
> I know Xnews allows you to setup regexp filters. Don't know what
> other current news clients do, though.

tagging this on 'ere.

I will not assume anything therefore:

Why was the [TEXT] tag removed from the post's subject line?

The [TEXT] tag at the beginning of some posts' subjects is removed to
prevent the unruly accumulation of tags from dozens of replies to a
thread. Unfortunately, this function sometimes incorrectly removes all
tags from a subject line. Our engineers are currently working on this
issue, and we hope to have it resolved soon. We appreciate your patience.

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22813& amp;topic=259


though I like this post about it, found in their groups:

Also, if the entire subject is [in a tag like this] then no subject
appears at all in the Google archive, which is particulary
non-functional, as the user can see the subject and cannot click on
the thread to open it. The only evidence a thread is there is the star
at the side and a blank space where the subject is ment to be.

http://groups.google.com/group/Is-Something-Broken/msg/bb369 530c25fbdd7


But as that now looks fixed, maybe they really are working on it?

elfin
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292508 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 23:58
FiX01  
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:07:00 +0930, "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au>
wrote:

>Arwen Lune wrote:
>> jester proclaimed...

>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -

>> |A|

>That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
>deactivated tags.

not mine: different keyboard layouts....

>> !R!

>Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.

This one would actually be the easiest one for my KB layout

So, if tag changes happen, I would like this change not to be dictated
by US keyboard layout, but to be based on a character that in not
difficult to type on any KB layout...

FiX
Re: [I] Emphasis in text (was testing a new tag) [message #292510 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 00:06
FiX01  
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:31:38 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>> Anastasia wrote:
>>> Anastasia wrote:
>>
>>>> / A /
>>>
>>> Huh. Sorry to follow self, but on my draft that A has a forward
>>> slash / on each side of it, and when I read the output as a post,
>>> the A is italicised. So never mind, as that's probably indicitave
>>> that it wouldn't work for *someone*.
>>
>> The Usenet conventions on this sort of thing (see RFC 1855) are
>> I /think/ based on real printer's marks, AICBW.
>>
>> / <letter> / reads as 'make this italic'
>>
>> * <letter> * reads as 'make this bold text'
>>
>> _ <letter> _ reads as 'underline this'
>
>Almost. A typographer wouldn't ever underline a word, so the underscore
>was used to indicate extra emphasis, which was usually achieved by
>putting it in italics. The /italics/ and *bold* are internetty
>extensions based on this tradition, because in cyberspace, no-one will
>scream at you for underlining text.

Yes, my understanding was that the underscore was the equivalent of
LaTeX \em tag, while * was used for explicit bold...
/me needs to find "Zen and the art on internet" in his archives...

FiX
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292523 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 00:25
Thomas Zahr  
esmi posted:

....

> I know Xnews allows you to setup regexp filters. Don't know
> what other current news clients do, though.

I don't think we need to take that into account, the [] make
sure it doesn't work at the moment, so, why should it matter
in the future?

--
Ciao

Thomas =:-)
<Good sig's are rare>
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292543 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:39
Stacie Hanes  
Thomas Zahr wrote:
> esmi posted:
>
> ...
>
>> I know Xnews allows you to setup regexp filters. Don't know
>> what other current news clients do, though.
>
> I don't think we need to take that into account, the [] make
> sure it doesn't work at the moment, so, why should it matter
> in the future?

Hmm, is there any reason not to just reduplicate letters?

I I I GD Spiders & Whips
R R R Pratchett on telly

clunky, but no special characters....
Re: [M] (M) a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292551 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:04
Eric Jarvis  
Matt usenet [at] xaxa.eu wrote in <pan.2006.06.28.20.34.44.850750 [at] xaxa.eu>:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:22:26 +0200, Peter Davies wrote:
>
> > It all started on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:27:53 -0700, when Gid wrote:
> >
> >> Snippetry..
> >>
> >>> Ooh.. quick peering..
> >>
> >>>From here these seem to work better..
> >>
> >> Should we go back to them?..
> >
> > Why not? And, out of interest, -TAGS- appear to be working fine on
> > rec.music.tori-amos.
> >
> > There is evidently some kind of conspiracy afoot against the use of square
> > brackets.
>
> Why has no-one mentioned round brackets? (A) (I) etc. They're easy to type
> for everyone (I think). If there's some unseen problem (unseen by me, that
> is) then I vote for <M> (as mentioned elsewhere).
>

Round brackets are used to show changed subjects.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292559 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 02:29
Arthur Hagen  
Anastasia <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, is there any reason not to just reduplicate letters?

Why duplicate them?

> I I I GD Spiders & Whips

That would be X X X Whips, methinks.

> R R R Pratchett on telly

Yes yes yes, he is is is.

> clunky, but no special characters....

If you /must/ have special notation, why not simply:

A: Gytha was named after an airport!
R: This is meta-crap and doesn't belong here
G: The new mobile phone Discworld game blows!
H: What's the quickest way to get in touch with Stephen Briggs?
!: Terry Pratchett's plane emergency lands in Bangor, Maine

Too simple?

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292576 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 04:34
Stacie Hanes  
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Anastasia <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, is there any reason not to just reduplicate letters?
>
> Why duplicate them?
>
>> I I I GD Spiders & Whips
>
> That would be X X X Whips, methinks.

LOL

>> R R R Pratchett on telly
>
> Yes yes yes, he is is is.

<blink>

ROFLMAO

Ow, my ribs hurt....this is why Art will never go into my killfile.

>> clunky, but no special characters....
>
> If you /must/ have special notation, why not simply:
>
> A: Gytha was named after an airport!
> R: This is meta-crap and doesn't belong here
> G: The new mobile phone Discworld game blows!
> H: What's the quickest way to get in touch with Stephen Briggs?
> !: Terry Pratchett's plane emergency lands in Bangor, Maine
>
> Too simple?

Hmmm, I like it, but we have discovered that I have the tech-savvy of a
concussed squirrel, haven't we, oh, yes we have.
Re: [M] -I- testing a new tag [message #292595 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 05:34
redtiger  
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:e7v6tg$n7l$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
<snip Stacie>
>
> If you /must/ have special notation, why not simply:
>
> A: Gytha was named after an airport!
> R: This is meta-crap and doesn't belong here
> G: The new mobile phone Discworld game blows!
> H: What's the quickest way to get in touch with Stephen Briggs?
> !: Terry Pratchett's plane emergency lands in Bangor, Maine
>
> Too simple?
>

You know, if this works and doesn't cause programme conflicts it looks like
a good way to go. Does someone on Google want to give it a go.
BTW, what does H: stand for?

Anthony

--
Don't aspire to become irreplaceable.
If you can't be replaced, you can't
be promoted.
M: Nobbling Colon [message #292601 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 06:21
Arthur Hagen  
redtiger <redtigeriiSPAM [at] iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:e7v6tg$n7l$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
>>
>> If you /must/ have special notation, why not simply:
>>
>> A: Gytha was named after an airport!
>> R: This is meta-crap and doesn't belong here
>> G: The new mobile phone Discworld game blows!
>> H: What's the quickest way to get in touch with Stephen Briggs?
>> !: Terry Pratchett's plane emergency lands in Bangor, Maine
>>
>> Too simple?
>
> You know, if this works and doesn't cause programme conflicts it
> looks like a good way to go. Does someone on Google want to give it a
> go.

There's already colons in most Subjects, so my bet is that it'll work.

> BTW, what does H: stand for?

"Help", which is currently "[ORACLE] ..." or "[I] Oracle: ..."

Q: could also work, I guess, but then people would assume A: to be an
answer. Then again, why not? Annotations could be something else, cause Q:
and A: are at least universal, and won't require a FAQ to be understood.
(Which probably means that my suggestion will be struck down. If it
required a FAQ, it would likely be more popular. K.I.S.S. isn't a popular
philosophy here.)

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M] was *I* a test of the old {[TAGS] [message #292628 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 10:30
PeterH  
It all started on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:24:20 +0100, when Karen wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.06.28.07.22.22.214207 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
> <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Why not? And, out of interest, -TAGS- appear to be working fine on
>>rec.music.tori-amos.
>>
>>There is evidently some kind of conspiracy afoot against the use of
>>square brackets.
>
>
> Good lord - I'd completely forgotten that rmt-a used the same tags as afp.
> Around about the mid '90s there was a noticeable overlap in posters for a
> while. (Midnight Tree Bandit springs to mind - is he still on rmt-a?).
> Obviously there still is some overlap between the groups :)
>
>
> I thought they used asterisks as well though? Did they change for the same
> reasons or just since Google groups? Have the dashes continued to work
> through all iterations of Google groups so far? I do remember seeing some
> of the same tag related 'discussions' there :)

They've always used dashes as far as I can tell - but then I only started
using Usenet at the end of 2000. The rmt-a threadmarker FAQ says it was
last updated in '99, so it seems as if Google's silliness has completely
passed them by.


...PeterH
Re: -I- testing a new tag (was: *I* a test of the old {[TAGS]) [message #292633 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 11:43
Graycat  
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:58:50 +0200, FiX
<FiX01 [at] club.lemonde.fr> jotted down:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:07:00 +0930, "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Arwen Lune wrote:
>>> jester proclaimed...
>
>>>> Didn't we move away from them because they were messing
>>>> up some people's filters by being a wildcard character?
>>>> Maybe we should picksomething else, like -
>
>>> |A|
>
>>That would be my preference, with single quotes 'A' as recommended for
>>deactivated tags.
>
>not mine: different keyboard layouts....
>
>>> !R!
>
>>Too much of a strain on the fingers. I would not support this.
>
>This one would actually be the easiest one for my KB layout
>
>So, if tag changes happen, I would like this change not to be dictated
>by US keyboard layout, but to be based on a character that in not
>difficult to type on any KB layout...

Agreed. For me, all of the proposed special characters
| ! > / require I press two keys. [] ! >{ } I can do with
one hand, | / I do with both hands. [] <> ! are the easiest
(imo) and | the most awkward.

But you know, I don't think that's the biggest concern when
we decide tag symbols - I mean, how often do you type the
tag? Often enough that it's a serious problem if you have to
use an extra keypush?

| looks like a capital i, so the I tag will look like this
|I| if we use that, not pretty (imo). Also the | and >
symbols are indicators of quoted text for me, so if I want
to write about the tags I run into problems.

/ * and _ are used to indicate emphasis, so I don't think
it's a very good idea to use those either.

! is a punctuation mark, so I don't think we should use
that.

IMO we should use something that is very rarely used for
anything else, like ¤ { or [

[ doesn't work with Google Groups

¤ is very similar to *

{ has been used before and allready has some sort of
tag-indicator status. I vote we use that if we're going to
change it. Possibly we can use normal parenthesis, single
quotes or * for the inactive tags.

Unless of course the reason it stopped being used is strong
enough that it's a bad idea to go back.

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: [M] Nobbling Colon [message #292640 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 12:05
Orjan Westin  
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> redtiger <redtigeriiSPAM [at] iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> news:e7v6tg$n7l$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
>>>
>>> If you /must/ have special notation, why not simply:
>>>
>>> A: Gytha was named after an airport!

Nah, she's anything but one of the Dulles.

>>> R: This is meta-crap and doesn't belong here

Did you mean M: here? Until afp.d appears and is widely propagated, it
does, I'd say. I'd like to see

R: Growth of the Watch as a reflection on post-11/9 (9/11 for
leftpondians) growth of police/surveillance/anti-terror state

>>> G: The new mobile phone Discworld game blows!
>>> H: What's the quickest way to get in touch with Stephen Briggs?
>>> !: Terry Pratchett's plane emergency lands in Bangor, Maine

!: for urgent news?

How about
F: UK fans needed for documentary

> There's already colons in most Subjects, so my bet is that it'll work.

I concur.

>> BTW, what does H: stand for?
>
> "Help", which is currently "[ORACLE] ..." or "[I] Oracle: ..."

Although the Oracle most often seem to be invoked when some more
esotheric piece of information is sought, but it makes sense to combine
it with other requests for assistance.

> Q: could also work, I guess, but then people would assume A: to be an
> answer. Then again, why not? Annotations could be something else,
> cause Q: and A: are at least universal, and won't require a FAQ to be
> understood.

Yes, but then any reply to a Q: thread would have to be re-tagged at
once, unless a clarification is sought. Just Q: would be fine, I think.

I guess there are two issues here. Or three, rather.

The first is whether a system of tags have enough support to be viable.
There aren't that many who object entirely, and some who defend them
strongly, but it remains to be seen if enough posters think they're
important enough to use and change.

The second is what set of tags are needed. Too few (like the common
[OT] only) would be meaningless, I feel, as this isn't a group that
easily divided into on- and off-topic. But too many would lead to
misuse, as it would be too har to remember what they are, and decide
which one to use. The AFIRM set is quite good, I think. C and G might
or might not be useful. A Q or H might be used more often.

The: [third] *is* |the| -formatting- <of> (the) #tags#. I quite like
your proposal, Arthur. It's nice and clean, and would discourage
creative placement of it (as in "World [C]up" and such). I'd rank it a
close second after -R- of the suggestions I've seen so far.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Vorheriges Thema:[I] Silly Lyrics Quiz
Nächstes Thema:-I- Yet another Lyrics Quiz: The answers
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:01:24 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07196 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered