$Bill wrote:

It doesn't for me. What I see is:

http://www.rca.com
documents/1550669C(DCM225,_DCM225E,_DCM226,_DCM235,_DCM235A, _DCM235E,_DCM235R,_DCM280

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.

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

James Knott wrote:

Your client appears to have deleted a / after .com .
I see the whole thing on one line. Consider trying another client.

I'm inserting the URL as I viewed it (just to see if sending client matters) :

http://www.rca.com/documents/1550669..._700488_25.pdf

Makes no difference with mine.

?????

Oh my, you have a short memory. I guess YOU should review the thread.
You dumped the pompus verbage on me, remember?

I had hoped that when you saw my signature, doing the same thing, you'd *get
it*?
I guess I was being too subtle.

My point is that calling yourself a "professional software engineer" or any
other title does not give you the right to be rude.
There was not a single word in my original post that was condescending or
off topic. There was no case of "RTFM" since my comments were directly
addressing your "I have a roommate who will be splitting the cost with me,
therefore we each pay $15." and you hadn't mentioned the possible extra
cost of an additional IP address.

I was trying to be helpful, period. Your reply was sarcastic and pompus.

Bob Stephens-Doll




"Joe McArthur" <joemac@hotpop.spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9580E0878AEBDipdaily@130.133.1.4...

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 <pompous rhetoric>
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANT <a pompous politician>
3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : MAGNIFICENT
- pomp·ous·ly adverb
- pomp·ous·ness noun

$Bill wrote:

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?

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

James Knott wrote:

Can you site a link that indicates that ? It's not in my storehouse of IT
info at the moment.

Maybe to do a better job reading messages.

$Bill wrote:

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.


--

(This space intentionally left blank)

James Knott wrote:

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.

Give it a try Warren.

$Bill wrote:

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
<protocol>:// 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.<domain>.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:

<http://www.<domain>.com/<anything>/<something>/<even_more>/<more_more_more>/<some_more_crap>/<anything_or_nothing>/filename.html>

And without brackets:
http://www.<domain>.com/<anything>/<something>/<even_more>/<more_more_more>/<some_more_crap>/<anything_or_nothing>/filename.html


--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

Warren wrote:

I would think it's irrelevant since you're not going to be clicking it.

These are the only two URL types of interest (with and without enclosing
angle brackets) :

1)
http://www.domain.com/anything/somet.../filename.html

2)
<http://www.domain.com/anything/something/more_more_more/more_more_more/more_more_more/even_more/more_more_more/some_more_crap/anything_or_nothing/filename.html>

Did anyone reading this get a different result between 1) and 2) ?

If so please post your clients reaction.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:34:13 -0700, $Bill wrote:
yes

1) was highlighted indicating a comment and both had a space added where
they wrapped. Using slrn as a newsreader.

Bit Twister wrote:

I would think 1) was highlighted because it was a valid URL link -
not a comment.

That sounds like a bug (adding the space).

$Bill wrote:

Outlook Express 6, neither wrapped. No difference. Same in both preview
pane and when opening the message.

It hasn't propagated to Google Groups yet, but the post that started
this is there, and the url (without brackets) didn't wrap.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

Warren wrote:

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.

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.

dj

"$Bill" <news@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote in message
news:-ISdnVbo1aKg-vLcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
name.html
ename.html>

Dr. Cajones wrote:
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.

"$Bill" <news@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote in
news:hbmdnccFZrrUzvLcRVn-vw@adelphia.com:

Nope. Double clicking on either one, using XNEWS brought up that URL in
my browser.

Joe

Joe McArthur wrote:
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.)

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

Dr. Cajones wrote:

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.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

DJ,



I'll have to tip my hat on that one to Joe.

He spelled it correctly in his post.

I managed to ignore my own rule and forgot to spell-check.

Good thing I didn't claim to be a Senior Staff Proofreader.



Bob




"Dr. Cajones" <drjawn.spamno@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:P7OdnZ0QqqOwA_PcRVn-pg@comcast.com...