The above doesn't work. It may be OK with some news readers, but not other. Regardless, the proper proceedure, which eliminates broken URLs, is to enclose the URL, in the brackets.
Bob, Joe, I have no credentials to put in my sig, but you both should learn how to spell pompous, or someone might think you were both full of pomposity!
dj
Main Entry: pomp·ous Pronunciation: 'päm-p&s Function: adjective
1 : excessively elevated or ornate
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT
3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
- pomp·ous·ly adverb
- pomp·ous·ness noun
begin 666 audio.gif M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P`````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
There is a standardized method that's to be used to prevent the problem. That method is to use the brackets around the URL. Why is someone expected to change their software, when someone else fails to follow proper proceedure?
You're the one that was bitching at Warren because his link was broken.
Why ? Because you haven't proven it. I tried both ways and both work for me, so at the moment your method is unsubstantiated (at least with my current news client).
Like so far it's a waste of my time and unproven. Let's have Warren try it and see what he thinks (after all it was his post that caused your uproar). Mine are always readable with or without the so I'm not being obstinate, just saving keystrokes.
I don't have a link, but I have read about it on a few occasions.
Why do you have to make such a problem out of such a simple solution?
Enclosing a URL in corrects the problem of broken URLs in mail & news readers. What possible reason could there be to not do so. That is other than to be deliberately obstinate.
So it boils down to James' solution is not a solution and his ragging on you was unwarranted. My interpretation is that it depends mostly on your news client - some handle it properly and others don't.
Before this thread, I had never heard of this convention. I did some searching, and I have not found anything that refers to the practice in terms of anything other than a client-side feature -- a mark-up that many clients understand. But many clients also understand how to wrap a link without the brackets.
Most of us, me included, send our newsgroup messages in plain text with no encoding. I didn't send a link. I sent text that could be used as a link. Turning it into a link is a client-side interface feature that would have been pointless before multitasking OS's came along. The only url's that would have worked as "link" would have been news:// because they would have been the only ones executable in the application running.
Now that I know that some people are using clients that aren't able to recognize a wrapping url before creating a link in the displayed text, but are able to do so if the brackets exist, I'll try to remember to do it as an added convenience. It does beg the question as to why the client can't tell that a url should be turned into a link from the :// all the way to the next space.
Based on what I can find, I'd have to say the use of the angle brackets was an interim step in interface design between the days of not turning any url's into links, and being able to interpret a url based on the rules of url construction without the aid of angle brackets.
BTW... How would a client that needs the angle brackets handle a url like this:
http://www..com/ where the angle brackets are used to enclose a label for a parameter? After all, enclosing parameters in brackets is more of a convention -- or at least one I've know about for years. Let me try that with a longer url to see how it looks with the brackets:
And without brackets: http://www..com///////filename.html
Using angle brackets is a solution ? If it doesn't work, why would you do it ? The solution is for anyone that can't read it to either live with it (double paste it) or get a new client.
If you're reading news, then be definition you have a newsreader. ;)
well, dollar bill, it would seem it is a solution for the original poster of it, I think. And I know you would never be found on the unwarranted side of anything. BTW, I have no newsreader, I use OE6, and both posts with and without brackets were the same for me, unwrapped, clickable, etc.
I see XNEWS wrapped the long urls when it quoted and resent them, and the angle brackets didn't help here. So even if one uses angle brackets for the benefit of users of some clients, it still results in a split url in (at least some clients) replies. That puts us right back to the beginning, where it's prudent to point-out that the long url may not wrap properly for some readers (even if brackets are used).
Oh, well. Maybe the next generation of newsreaders will overcome this limitation, like most have overcome the problem of long urls in regular text. (And hopefully we won't need to take an intermediate step of trying to get message authors to insert special characters to deal with it for certain newsreaders. The solution should be entirely client-side.)
That's like saying, "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Unless you're reading an archive or digest of these messages at some website, you're using a newsreader.
A newsreader is a program that uses the nntp protocol to communicate with the news server. Therefore if you're reading and posting to this newsgroup with Outlook Express (and your headers indicate you are), you are using a newsreader. OE6 is your newsreader.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.