program

[Nil]

Well, to be fair, he was half right when he said "Put the link
inside chevrons and you don't need to issue warnings".

Wrapping the link with chevrons is the first step, but you still
need to be using a newsreader that knows what to do when it
encounters text wrapped in chevrons while posting. His newsreader
failed the second test.

I think that, in this case, if it fails half the equation, it fails the
whole thing. Unless you have some strong evidence that your long URL
won't wrap and break, putting chevrons around it is fairly pointless.

Yep!

If I ever can't use Xnews for some reason (which may happen someday, as
it's been out of development for many years) Agent would be my next
choice.

By the way, look how long this thread has gone on already.
HoneyTroll was successful again.

I don't mind that the troll post led to some interesting discussion.
Just so long as nobody wasted their time responding to the childish
creep as if it were sincere.

 

[Char Jackson]

I think that, in this case, if it fails half the equation, it fails the
whole thing. Unless you have some strong evidence that your long URL
won't wrap and break, putting chevrons around it is fairly pointless.

Totally agree. Halfway doesn't cut it.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

For what it's worth, my newsreader saw that as a valid link in
rednoise's original post, despite it being on two lines, but not in
Char's repost, probably because of the added > (it sees it as a link but
ending at "fo").

Right, because the chevrons don't undo a wrapped URL, they're supposed
to prevent it from wrapping in the first place. In that respect, Agent
is successful.

Now in rednoise's original post, that appeared to me as two lines, but a
valid link (i. e. all of both lines); in Char's repost, it was still
valid, but had all gone onto one line.

Since Agent is chevron-aware, I don't have to worry about line wrap
when I post long URLs.

(I'm using Turnpike, which is fairly old.)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Nil

I'd say most news and mail readers are "chevron aware" to the extent
that when they encounter a URL in the middle of a sentence, they will
present it as a clickable link, but exclude the chevrons themselves. If

I'd say that is being "URL aware" in some cases - i. e. they recognise
http://, or sometimes just www.; whether they are chevron-aware probably
determines whether they are good at figuring out where the end of the
URL is.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Totally agree. Halfway doesn't cut it.

I disagree: something that draws attention to where the ends of the URL
are has some value at least. Especially where the URL ends with some
otherwise valid word, especially if that has split onto the start of a
new line anyway.

 

[Char Jackson]

I disagree: something that draws attention to where the ends of the URL
are has some value at least. Especially where the URL ends with some
otherwise valid word, especially if that has split onto the start of a
new line anyway.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm talking about a URL that
remains machine readable, while it looks like you're saying there's
value in maintaining a human readable form. To me, it can suffer great
damage and still be human readable. It's the machine (newsreader)
readable form that I care about.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm talking about a URL that
remains machine readable, while it looks like you're saying there's
value in maintaining a human readable form. To me, it can suffer great
damage and still be human readable. It's the machine (newsreader)
readable form that I care about.

I think he meant that if the human reading a split URL sees the
chevrons, said human will realize that the URL was split.

One reason I say that is that I thought of posting a similar comment
yesterday. Obviously, I failed in my duty to the newsgroup

 

[Char Jackson]

I think he meant that if the human reading a split URL sees the
chevrons, said human will realize that the URL was split.

Yeah, that's what I figured (and what I was trying to say above).

One reason I say that is that I thought of posting a similar comment
yesterday. Obviously, I failed in my duty to the newsgroup

I've had my own share of failures. Hopefully, no one's keeping score.