It occurs to me that I might not always use code tags correctly

I usually use the nntp gateway to the forums. I like composing with vim much
better than the http forum composer…

I sometimes bother to use http style code tags. But in the nntp interface it
looks cleaner if I use instead the alternative convention of putting
“Code:” on an other wise empty line followed immediately by matching pair
of “-------------” lines between which goes the tagged block of text.

While I wouldn’t normally use code tags just to display the following cutesy
snip indicator line. It will work as an example for my question about the
nntp gateway convention.


-snipped. .  .   .    .     .      .       .        .         .stuff

Which I’d be just as likely to code tag this way?

Code:

-snipped. . . . . . . . . .stuff

My questions involve how this is displayed when read using the http gateway.

  1. Does the http forum software really recognize the nntp text interface
    convention?

  2. If so, is the length of the two “-------------” line significant?
    IE:



If this is correct:

Code:
-------------
-snipped. .  .   .    .     .      .       .        .         .stuff
-------------

is this just as good?

Code:
------------------------
-snipped. .  .   .    .     .      .       .        .         .stuff
------------------------

Or do I need to count the dashes (How many?) to ensure that http users see the
code tagged text without formatting changes?

In other words, will the http user see this ASCII art example:

Code:

| ^^^ ^^^
|
| ^ `
| ___

’ `

as cleanly as this one:


|  ~^~   ~^~
|  <?>   <?>
|      ^
|    \___/

Of course, if the number of “-” characters in the begin/end marker lines of the
nntp convention don’t have a specific value for the http software to recognize
it, then I will most likely only need to look at this post via http to have the
answers I’m looking for…

But if the number of “-” char is significant… Please explain.


JtWdyP

So I do not use nttp at all and don’t know its ins and outs. The most common issue I see is here is that the word code gets written in lower case and not in upper case as in CODE and not code, so even if the brakets and slash are there, it is not a code field to the HTTP side. Second, you need to already have your text surrounded by a CODE # field before you do a preview, else, the formatting is already lost. For HTTP, you need to go to the advanced text editor first, where the CODE # field can be selected, write your mono-spaced formatted text and encase it in the proper CODE # field and then you can do a preview or post and the formatting will be preserved, else all is lost and its just another run together paragraph.

Thank You,

On 2013-07-28 16:03, JtWdyP wrote:
> 1) Does the http forum software really recognize the nntp text interface
> convention?

The best answer I can give is that you look for yourself on the web side
to see how your post was rendered. In short, only the bracket version
worked.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

It would appear that on Jul 28, Carlos E. R. did say:

> Newsgroups: opensuse.org.feedback.forums.support-information
> Message-ID: <7n0gca-38s.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
> From: Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:28:06 GMT
> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LMD.2.02.1307280905510.11195@localhost>
> Subject: Re: It occurs to me that I might not always use code tags correctly
>
> On 2013-07-28 16:03, JtWdyP wrote:
> > 1) Does the http forum software really recognize the nntp text interface
> > convention?
>
> The best answer I can give is that you look for yourself on the web side
> to see how your post was rendered. In short, only the bracket version
> worked.

Yeah, that I noticed… But that could be because I didn’t use the correct
number of “-” chars in the two marker lines, resulting in the http software
not recognizing it as a code block. In the mean time I’ve poked around and
found a message where a code tag which did work on the http side, was
displayed the other way on the nntp side…

So I’m including one more test, in this message, using the same exact number of
“-” in the nntp form marker lines as that message had. So hopefully this:

Code:

| ~^~ ~^~
| <> <>
| ^

___/

will look as good as:


--
|   ---   ___
|   <0>   <->
|       ^              JtWdyP
|    ~\___/~

Well that didn’t work… So I gess not even using the corrrect nntp syntax

will result in the http side displaying it as:


|   ~^~   ~^~
|   <*>   <*>       
|       ^         
|     \___/         

So If I care how it looks on the http side, I’ll have to use the bbCode tags…

On 07/28/2013 09:06 PM, jtwdyp wrote:
> So I gess not even using the corrrect nntp
> syntax

problem is the assumption that some number of dashes is “the correct
nntp syntax”…
but, it is not…

instead the word Code followed by some dashes is the way a http
composed “code tagged” passage is shown in the nntp interface (and
not the way to compose an nntp message and have it show correctly in
the web interface…)

that is done only the word ‘code’ inside square brackets to begin and
the string ‘/code’ inside bracket to signal the end…

and, (despite the info in #2) as far as i know one can use either
CODE or code (and maybe cOdE) i’ll try all three:


this is with code


this with CODE


and this with cOdD

fyi, there are many “bb codes” usable, see here:
http://forums.opensuse.org/misc.php?do=bbcode


dd
http://tinyurl.com/DD-Complaints

I just noticed that when I just used [noparse]

 

[/noparse] tags
on the http side for that last post, the nntp side displayed it the other way:

And: It inserted a couple of nearly blank lines, One before my content with 4
spaces, AND one after my content with 2 spaces… It alsi indented my content
with 2 spaces…

It would appear that on Jul 28, jtwdyp did say:

Code:

| ~^~ ~^~
| <> <>
| ^
| ___/


So for my own edification, I’m gonna post one more ascii art with that exact
formatting on the nntp side to see if that does it… Which I doubt.

Code:


| ^^^ ^^^
|
| ^ JtWdyP | ___ | '


It would appear that on Jul 28, dd did say:

> On 07/28/2013 09:06 PM, jtwdyp wrote:
> > So I gess not even using the corrrect nntp
> > syntax
>
> problem is the assumption that some number of dashes is “the correct nntp
> syntax”…
> but, it is not…
>
> instead the word Code followed by some dashes is the way a http composed
> “code tagged” passage is shown in the nntp interface (and not the way to
> compose an nntp message and have it show correctly in the web interface…)

Yeah, that was my empirical conclusion. I note though that the conversion is
not only one way, but it only happens if the message with the bbCode:
[noparse]

 & 

[/noparse] tags was actually composed on the http side.

and, (despite the info in #2) as far as i know one can use either CODE or code
(and maybe cOdE) i’ll try all three:

That I knew. I couldn’t see arguing that point though, since jdmcdaniel3’s method
will work like a charm. ;-7

All three worked on the http side BTW…

fyi, there are many “bb codes” usable, see here:
http://forums.opensuse.org/misc.php?do=bbcode

Now that is a useful link…

Thanks!


--
|   ---   ___
|   <0>   <->
|       ^              JtWdyP
|    ~\___/~


On 07/28/2013 10:26 PM, JtWdyP wrote:
> that is a useful link… Thanks!

welcome.


dd