1 - Allow the CODE tag to be abbreviated to just C, eg <C>, which doesn't conflict with any HTML, and is slightly easier to write. A bit easier to write at least IMO... Update - Wasn't specifically clear, but meant for C and CODE to exist simulataneously, with a push to have newer users to use CODE at first until they get the hang of the site (since most experienced users know that all CODE does is to be converted to TT with some special filtering of the text between.

2 - Addition of a link next to the author's name of all nodes that takes one to a private message page where the user can send off a private messgae to the author, prepended by the linked node ID. I've had a couple cases recently where I've pointed out errors that don't need to have their own node, just a simple CB prvmsg would do, and with some of the longer names, it may be easy to mistype the author's name. However, I would have this be opt-in only via a setting that the author can set if s/he wants it to be. (I would also suggest the same for an email link, with the same opt-in-ness, but this can be easier to get via linking to the author's page in the first place).

Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM
by premchai21 (Curate) on Jun 25, 2001 at 03:51 UTC
    My responses to each point in order:
    1. I think that would be more work for vroom than it would be worth. Then again, I haven't looked too thoroughly through the Everything source, so I can't comment authoritatively on that.
    2. The way Everything2 does this is by putting a /msg box on every user's home node, which is another alternative. I agree with the opt-in-ness of it.
[reply]
Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM
by ChemBoy (Priest) on Jun 25, 2001 at 08:28 UTC

    Point one has been raised in a previous thread (Standalone Code Tag), where it got a somewhat mixed reception... it has merits in terms of not constituting an override of the existing <code> tag in HTML, which is good, but unless we want to go retrofit all the old nodes with them, that doesn't buy us anything (the translation would have to be left in for backward compatability). Though that retrofit woulndn't be all that hard... I'm just not sure it's worth the trouble, honestly.

    Item two, however, sounds like a great idea--and if E2 has something similar already implemented, then it probably wouldn't be too much of a pain for vroom to implement, which I suspect would be something of a deal-breaker (he being elsewhere employed and all).


    If God had meant us to fly, he would *never* have give us the railroads.
        --Michael Flanders

[reply]
Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM
by chipmunk (Parson) on Jun 26, 2001 at 22:52 UTC
    It seems to me that a "Perl" tag would be more appropriate than a "C" tag for this site. :D
[reply]
Re: Two quick (and easy?) suggestions for PM
by Abigail (Deacon) on Jun 26, 2001 at 22:04 UTC
    I'm a bit baffled by your update. If people decide to go with your idea, why do you suggest new users should use CODE and not C, when they are equivalent? It would imply there was some danger using C and not CODE, and only experienced people would know how to avoid the pitfalls - but that contradicts you saying CODE and C are equivalent.

    While I welcome the idea of not overloading an existing HTML element, I don't see any point in keeping C for people "in the know", but continuing telling newcomers to use CODE. If (and that's a big if) they decide to go with C, the only reason IMO to keep CODE around for some time is to cater older users, as they are used to it.

    -- Abigail

[reply]
      The only reasont that I would suggest to use CODE over C is to associate what that special tag means. Say we completely converted all CODE tags to just C tags, and told new users to use a C tag to indicate code. Because of the abbreviation from CODE to C, it's not intuitively obvious that "code" is connected with "C", and thus some might forget it faster than having them introduced via CODE (which is a direct connection, of course). I'm certainly not saying that if the C tag was available that we should go around and flame newbies that use the C tag over CODE. However, you'll have more people using CODE or C over PRE or (even worse) no special tags when displaying code if you tell users that "You can mark code with the special HTML tag CODE (or C for short)...". That code-to-CODE connection is the key to making sure that info sticks. (Yes, I've done waaaay too much on learning styles and the like in my academia days ... ;-)

      Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion