Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread

Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY")

Started byQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
First post2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Last post2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
                                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
                                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
              Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
                Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600

Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14  Next page →


#161054

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Message-ID<ncalav22hie@news4.newsguy.com>
In reply to#161049
On 2016-03-16, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>>> I prefer PDF.
>>
>> As do I.
>>
>>> Uggh!
>>>
>>> Just what I want, viewing documentation meant for paper on a terminal.
>>
>> It helps to use a good viewer.   Acroread sucks as does evince.
>>
>> xpdf, however, works quite well.

True, although it feels a bit clunky.

> Still makes zero sense to me.
>
> In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
> highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
> contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
> column header.
>
> Try that with XPDF.

I guess it all comes down to having a good viewer, whether PDF or HTML.
I don't know how to make a web browser do the kind of magic you're talking
about.  On the other hand, on Windows systems I use Foxit, which is a nice
lightweight PDF reader that handles indexes, does searches, etc.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161085

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Message-ID<ncbt8n$nn1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#161054
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2016-03-16, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> I prefer PDF.
>>>
>>> As do I.
>>>
>>>> Uggh!
>>>>
>>>> Just what I want, viewing documentation meant for paper on a terminal.
>>>
>>> It helps to use a good viewer.   Acroread sucks as does evince.
>>>
>>> xpdf, however, works quite well.
>
> True, although it feels a bit clunky.
>
>> Still makes zero sense to me.
>>
>> In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
>> highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
>> contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
>> column header.
>>
>> Try that with XPDF.
>
> I guess it all comes down to having a good viewer, whether PDF or HTML.

No it doesn't.  It comes from the capabilities of the medium.

The title nesting is trivial:

  In each title, include a name="xxx" tag.  That lets other things link
  to the title.

  Make each title a link pointing to the next higher title.

  Then build content lists (tables of contents) for each level.

As far as sortable tables:

http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/sorttable/


> I don't know how to make a web browser do the kind of magic you're talking
> about.  On the other hand, on Windows systems I use Foxit, which is a nice
> lightweight PDF reader that handles indexes, does searches, etc.

Not even close.

I do the HTML without any tools other than an editor.
Actually I do use scripts sometimes to keep tables of contents in sync
with content, mainly because I can.  Python has some nice HTML access
and manipulation tools.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161090

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Message-ID<ncc0td12t4i@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to#161085
On 2016-03-16, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> I guess it all comes down to having a good viewer, whether PDF or HTML.
>
> No it doesn't.  It comes from the capabilities of the medium.

Still, a crappy viewer won't be able to take advantage of it.

> The title nesting is trivial:
>
>   In each title, include a name="xxx" tag.  That lets other things link
>   to the title.
>
>   Make each title a link pointing to the next higher title.
>
>   Then build content lists (tables of contents) for each level.

I'll have to work that into my programs' HTML output.

> As far as sortable tables:
>
> http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/sorttable/

Slick!  That one goes into my to-do file.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161105

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Message-ID<ncc8q9$7nl$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#161090
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2016-03-16, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I guess it all comes down to having a good viewer, whether PDF or HTML.
>>
>> No it doesn't.  It comes from the capabilities of the medium.
>
> Still, a crappy viewer won't be able to take advantage of it.
>
>> The title nesting is trivial:
>>
>>   In each title, include a name="xxx" tag.  That lets other things link
>>   to the title.
>>
>>   Make each title a link pointing to the next higher title.
>>
>>   Then build content lists (tables of contents) for each level.
>
> I'll have to work that into my programs' HTML output.
>
>> As far as sortable tables:
>>
>> http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/sorttable/
>
> Slick!  That one goes into my to-do file.

Another one I use gives me themes.
I'm stuck on white text on black backgrounds.
Some people just can't adapt.

Setting some cookies allows a site to chose CSS for whatever color
scheme you like.

Another favorite effect I call "greenbar".  Any sample computer reports
using alternating 2 lines green, 2 lines white.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161070

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Message-ID<vOcGy.33320$GB1.5@fx28.iad>
In reply to#161049
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

>> xpdf, however, works quite well.
>
>Still makes zero sense to me.
>
>In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
>highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
>contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
>column header.

If the PDF has internal links, xpdf will allow them to be followed
just like HTML.

Not all HTML tables are sortable, by default, that requires additional
programming on the part of the document writer.

Xpdf shows the table of contents in a separate pane on the left side
of the window - clicking on an entry in the ToC takes you directly
to the appropriate page.   XPDF has a back button for navigation.

>
>Try that with XPDF.

Everything above except sortable tables (which I've _never_ had a need for
when reading documentation using xpdf) is supported by XPDF.

The ARMv8 ARM (Architecture Reference Manual) is 5,778 pages of
PDF - fully hyperlinked internally with a tree-structured table
of contents.    Easily navigated, and because it is a single document,
easily searched.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161086

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Message-ID<ncbtpj$nn1$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#161070
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>>> xpdf, however, works quite well.
>>
>>Still makes zero sense to me.
>>
>>In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
>>highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
>>contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
>>column header.
>
> If the PDF has internal links, xpdf will allow them to be followed
> just like HTML.

Yes and no.
No one writes PDF.
So, you need to put this stuff together with some other tool in some
other language.
I use a combiniation of an editor and some scripts for tables of
contents generation.  I understand there are APIs for Word and the like
but the APIs for HTML processing are well known and I'd guess simpler.

> Not all HTML tables are sortable, by default, that requires additional
> programming on the part of the document writer.

Look it up.  Simply input the "sortable,js" script once, then add
the sortable tag to the table.
As easy as falling off a rock.

> Xpdf shows the table of contents in a separate pane on the left side
> of the window - clicking on an entry in the ToC takes you directly
> to the appropriate page.   XPDF has a back button for navigation.

Good way to give up some valuable viewing area.

>>Try that with XPDF.
>
> Everything above except sortable tables (which I've _never_ had a need for
> when reading documentation using xpdf) is supported by XPDF.

See above.

Sortable tables?  One document I've done hundreds of lists changes in a
release and the modules changed.  Interested in finding a feature
change, sort on the change id, more interested in a module being
changed, sort on module name.  Want chronological, sort on date.

> The ARMv8 ARM (Architecture Reference Manual) is 5,778 pages of
> PDF - fully hyperlinked internally with a tree-structured table
> of contents.    Easily navigated, and because it is a single document,
> easily searched.

Link?

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161089

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Message-ID<AtfGy.84150$2B3.18983@fx14.iad>
In reply to#161086
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>>> xpdf, however, works quite well.
>>>
>>>Still makes zero sense to me.
>>>
>>>In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
>>>highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
>>>contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
>>>column header.
>>
>> If the PDF has internal links, xpdf will allow them to be followed
>> just like HTML.
>
>Yes and no.
>No one writes PDF.
>So, you need to put this stuff together with some other tool in some
>other language.
>I use a combiniation of an editor and some scripts for tables of
>contents generation.  I understand there are APIs for Word and the like
>but the APIs for HTML processing are well known and I'd guess simpler.

Most technical documentation is still done with Frame, which handles
such hyperlinking in the resulting PDF documentation.

>
>> Not all HTML tables are sortable, by default, that requires additional
>> programming on the part of the document writer.
>
>Look it up.  Simply input the "sortable,js" script once, then add
>the sortable tag to the table.
>As easy as falling off a rock.

But additional programming, and programming that doesn't work right
with many browser plugins (such as nojs).

>
>> Xpdf shows the table of contents in a separate pane on the left side
>> of the window - clicking on an entry in the ToC takes you directly
>> to the appropriate page.   XPDF has a back button for navigation.
>
>Good way to give up some valuable viewing area.

I'm sorry, but xpdf shows me a 8.5x11 full page.  That's one of its
desirable attributes.  The back button shows up in a small button bar
at the bottom of the window (along with page forward/page backward buttons,
a box to enter the desired page number, a magnification button, a find
button and a print button).

I can open 3 documents  side-by-side on one of my 1920x1200 displays and have
a large vim open on the other.

xpdf on the ARMv8 ARM, with ToC sidebar, requires 

xwininfo: Window id: 0x44000ea "DDI0487A_h_armv8_arm.pdf"

  Absolute upper-left X:  2594
  Absolute upper-left Y:  21
  Relative upper-left X:  0
  Relative upper-left Y:  19
  Width: 1181
  Height: 1046
  Depth: 24
  ...
  Corners:  +2594+21  -65+21  -65-133  +2594-133
  -geometry 1181x1046-63+0

Screen shot: <http://www.lurndal.org/images/xpdf.jpg>  blue text is hyperlink.

Sure, it uses athena widgets, but I consider that an advantage, as it
performs well even over slow remote X11 links.

I think there may also be a cygwin version available, but I've not looked.

>> The ARMv8 ARM (Architecture Reference Manual) is 5,778 pages of
>> PDF - fully hyperlinked internally with a tree-structured table
>> of contents.    Easily navigated, and because it is a single document,
>> easily searched.
>
>Link?
>

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0487a.e/index.html

Note you'll need to register (free) to download.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161104

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Message-ID<ncc8fh$7nl$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#161089
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>>> xpdf, however, works quite well.
>>>>
>>>>Still makes zero sense to me.
>>>>
>>>>In my HTML manuals, when I click on a heading, it brings me to the next
>>>>highest heading.  H3, leads to the parent H2, H2 to H1.   Tables of
>>>>contents appear throughout.  All tables are sortable, just click on the
>>>>column header.
>>>
>>> If the PDF has internal links, xpdf will allow them to be followed
>>> just like HTML.
>>
>>Yes and no.
>>No one writes PDF.
>>So, you need to put this stuff together with some other tool in some
>>other language.
>>I use a combiniation of an editor and some scripts for tables of
>>contents generation.  I understand there are APIs for Word and the like
>>but the APIs for HTML processing are well known and I'd guess simpler.
>
> Most technical documentation is still done with Frame, which handles
> such hyperlinking in the resulting PDF documentation.
>
>>
>>> Not all HTML tables are sortable, by default, that requires additional
>>> programming on the part of the document writer.
>>
>>Look it up.  Simply input the "sortable,js" script once, then add
>>the sortable tag to the table.
>>As easy as falling off a rock.
>
> But additional programming, and programming that doesn't work right
> with many browser plugins (such as nojs).

I frequently run with noscript.
Fortunately tables display fine that way, they just don't sort.
No one in a work environment is going to run that way though.

Also, I don't consider including a script and adding a tag "progrramming".


>>> Xpdf shows the table of contents in a separate pane on the left side
>>> of the window - clicking on an entry in the ToC takes you directly
>>> to the appropriate page.   XPDF has a back button for navigation.
>>
>>Good way to give up some valuable viewing area.
>
> I'm sorry, but xpdf shows me a 8.5x11 full page.  That's one of its
> desirable attributes.  The back button shows up in a small button bar
> at the bottom of the window (along with page forward/page backward buttons,
> a box to enter the desired page number, a magnification button, a find
> button and a print button).

How the hell is 8.5x11 a full page?
It's only a full page on paper sized that way.

> I can open 3 documents  side-by-side on one of my 1920x1200 displays and have
> a large vim open on the other.

And any attempt at 4 documents or filling the screen or with one or 2
documents is a total failure.  You're forced to see how many virtual
pieces of paper you can view on your terminal.

> xpdf on the ARMv8 ARM, with ToC sidebar, requires 
>
> xwininfo: Window id: 0x44000ea "DDI0487A_h_armv8_arm.pdf"
>
>   Absolute upper-left X:  2594
>   Absolute upper-left Y:  21
>   Relative upper-left X:  0
>   Relative upper-left Y:  19
>   Width: 1181
>   Height: 1046
>   Depth: 24
>   ...
>   Corners:  +2594+21  -65+21  -65-133  +2594-133
>   -geometry 1181x1046-63+0
>
> Screen shot: <http://www.lurndal.org/images/xpdf.jpg>  blue text is hyperlink.
>
> Sure, it uses athena widgets, but I consider that an advantage, as it
> performs well even over slow remote X11 links.
>
> I think there may also be a cygwin version available, but I've not looked.
>
>>> The ARMv8 ARM (Architecture Reference Manual) is 5,778 pages of
>>> PDF - fully hyperlinked internally with a tree-structured table
>>> of contents.    Easily navigated, and because it is a single document,
>>> easily searched.
>>
>>Link?
>>
>
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0487a.e/index.html
>
> Note you'll need to register (free) to download.

Thanks, I get the idea, a lot like how IBM mangles it's documents.
No thanks.


-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161106

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Message-ID<20160316190017.3a1279662e49e12b8f0fde84@eircom.net>
In reply to#161104
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:28:59 -0400
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> 
> > I'm sorry, but xpdf shows me a 8.5x11 full page.  That's one of its
> > desirable attributes.  The back button shows up in a small button bar
> > at the bottom of the window (along with page forward/page backward
> > buttons, a box to enter the desired page number, a magnification
> > button, a find button and a print button).
> 
> How the hell is 8.5x11 a full page?
> It's only a full page on paper sized that way.

	Quite so, and xpdf is sensitive to page size. As for full page, it
defaults to 125% here which leaves a scrollbar even in full height mode.

> > I can open 3 documents  side-by-side on one of my 1920x1200 displays
> > and have a large vim open on the other.
> 
> And any attempt at 4 documents or filling the screen or with one or 2
> documents is a total failure.  You're forced to see how many virtual
> pieces of paper you can view on your terminal.

	Well no, it does have standard window resize controls (depending on
the window manager of course) and zoom controls including fit to page
(should be window) and fit to width. OTOH yes it is designed to display
virtual pieces of paper which are not always the best way to render
documents.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161116

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Message-ID<dku0tmFtjilU4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#161106
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:00:17 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:28:59 -0400 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> 
>> > I'm sorry, but xpdf shows me a 8.5x11 full page.  That's one of its
>> > desirable attributes.  The back button shows up in a small button bar
>> > at the bottom of the window (along with page forward/page backward
>> > buttons, a box to enter the desired page number, a magnification
>> > button, a find button and a print button).
>> 
>> How the hell is 8.5x11 a full page?
>> It's only a full page on paper sized that way.
> 
> 	Quite so, and xpdf is sensitive to page size. As for full page, it
> defaults to 125% here which leaves a scrollbar even in full height mode.

Add:

 initialZoom page

to .xpdfrc




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161114

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Message-ID<nccgsv04on@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to#161086
On 2016-03-16, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> If the PDF has internal links, xpdf will allow them to be followed
>> just like HTML.
>
> Yes and no.
> No one writes PDF.
> So, you need to put this stuff together with some other tool in some
> other language.
> I use a combiniation of an editor and some scripts for tables of
> contents generation.  I understand there are APIs for Word and the like
> but the APIs for HTML processing are well known and I'd guess simpler.

Definitely simpler.  For one thing, the HTML specification is easy to
both find and read.  I added a PDF output option to some of my programs -
finding enough information to do it felt like breaking into some
top-secret installation, and even then I got help by copying tidbits
from a sample program that I found (after another lengthy search).
And making right justification work was _ugly_.

>> Xpdf shows the table of contents in a separate pane on the left side
>> of the window - clicking on an entry in the ToC takes you directly
>> to the appropriate page.   XPDF has a back button for navigation.
>
> Good way to give up some valuable viewing area.

I thought that web pages were all about giving up valuable viewing area.
At least that seems to be the way modern web designers think.  It's nice
to know that there are a few people out there who still want content.

I'm definitely going to look up sorttable.js in my copious free time.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161041

Fromhancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Date2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Message-ID<bd166bf3-ad1b-424c-ac24-924d7e04b3cb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#161018
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:44:51 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote:
> I found that if you told the XEROX to print 25 copies instead of telling
> JES to do so, the Xerox would spit out 25 originals in no time at all.

Oh yes, we did that as well.  With JES, the document had to be
transmitted to the printer multiple times.  But the printer had its
own storage and did duplicates faster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#160985

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Message-ID<b7kjrc-m87.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#160951
In article <nc71c10tmk@news6.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2016-03-14, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>
>> I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a high-end
>> computer terminal was one that could display both upper AND lower case
>> characters.
>
>And some people were so tied to upper case (some still are)
>that I once got in trouble for enabling lower case on a terminal.

I am slightly younger. In my youth a high-end terminal was one
where you could position the cursor.

>> More fun with whippersnappers:  show them a write ring, tell them it
>> used to be an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what they
>> think it is.
>
>Why, it was used for ring toss games in the computer room, of course.
>
>During the brief heyday of 96-column cards, I would say to people,
>"Here's my card," and hand them a 96-column card that was punched
>in such a way that the holes spelled out "MY CARD".

Pretty close to lace cards, some of those.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161131

FromStephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Date2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Message-ID<ncd3fs$c5d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#160827
On 10-Mar-16 17:55, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote:
>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say:
>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came
>>> years later.
>> 
>>  Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud?  And Baudot teletype code?
> 
> Now, that is a good one!

I agree, but you're about 17 years late to that conversation...

I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
archive back into distribution again or something?

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161137

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Message-ID<2h1qrc-6o.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#161131
In article <ncd3fs$c5d$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 10-Mar-16 17:55, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote:
>>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say:
>>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came
>>>> years later.
>>> 
>>>  Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud?  And Baudot teletype code?
>> 
>> Now, that is a good one!
>
>I agree, but you're about 17 years late to that conversation...
>
>I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
>archive back into distribution again or something?

ISTR Google groups sometimes show some old postings they deem significant
for some reason, and they are not very well tagged; so replying to them can
be a pretty innocent mistake.

I don't know this; I never use Google Groups. I use leafnode and trn.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161146

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Message-ID<PM00052E3E35857B9B@aca2d627.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#161131
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 10-Mar-16 17:55, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury
wrote:
>>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say:
>>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came
>>>> years later.
>>>
>>>  Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud?  And Baudot teletype code?
>>
>> Now, that is a good one!
>
> I agree, but you're about 17 years late to that conversation...
>
> I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
> archive back into distribution again or something?

I've been wondering if Google has a date problem.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161166

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Message-ID<dl0mirFr1q5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#161146

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052E3E35857B9B@aca2d627.ipt.aol.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 10-Mar-16 17:55, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury
> wrote:
>>>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say:
>>>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came
>>>>> years later.
>>>>
>>>>  Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud?  And Baudot teletype code?
>>>
>>> Now, that is a good one!
>>
>> I agree, but you're about 17 years late to that conversation...
>>
>> I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
>> archive back into distribution again or something?
>
> I've been wondering if Google has a date problem.

Nope, its always allowed you to find even ancient stuff.

That is the whole point of the archive. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161162

FromQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
Date2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Message-ID<b25bb17b-e6a8-4d2b-8b2f-fa7df7c54a30@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#161131
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:10:01 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
> archive back into distribution again or something?

Google Groups has ceased to enforce normal USENET restrictions on the age of 
posts to which one can reply.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161174

Frommausg@mail.com
Date2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Message-ID<slrnnentvf.1sf.mausg@Smaus.org>
In reply to#161162
On 2016-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:10:01 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
>> archive back into distribution again or something?
>
> Google Groups has ceased to enforce normal USENET restrictions on the age of 
> posts to which one can reply.
>
> John Savard

There are USENET restrictions on age?


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#161185

FromQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
Date2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Message-ID<8efbe1ed-4fd4-40b7-b157-a97997d8c35d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#161174
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 6:43:31 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:10:01 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> >> I've noticed there's a spate of these lately; did someone dump an old
> >> archive back into distribution again or something?

> > Google Groups has ceased to enforce normal USENET restrictions on the age of 
> > posts to which one can reply.
 
> There are USENET restrictions on age?

With a normal newsreader, and a normal NNTP server, attempting to reply to a 
post that is archived in your newsreader, but which is earlier than a certain 
limit, will not be allowed.

Deja News, later acquired by Google and rechristened Google Groups, displayed 
archived posts from long past, but it also observed USENET conventions and did 
not allow one to reply to posts displayed on it unless they were recent.

Recently, changes in the Google Groups interface were accompanied by a change 
in its behavior in this respect; it no longer prevents replying to very old 
USENET posts.

As for keeping one's children away from the cesspool that is USENET, that's up 
to their parents.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers


csiph-web