Text 747, 74 rader
Skriven 2007-03-23 15:01:18 av Maurice Kinal (1:140/13)
    Kommentar till text 738 av Mithgol the Webmaster (2:5063/88)
Ärende: Hypertext Fidonet (Fidonet Global Hypertext Interchange)
================================================================
Hey Mithgol!

Mar 22 23:29 07, Mithgol the Webmaster wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 MtW> Perhaps not. If we were to figure out that _first_, then they would 
 MtW> be dragging all of us down just by introducing the need to figure it 
 MtW> out before developing _anything_ modern.

Your idea isn't modern.  You are only indroducing existing standard(s) and
calling it Fido.

 MtW> whole idea of finding out which standards are worth carrying around 
 MtW> and which are not, I still reverve my right to propose something 
 MtW> brand new from the scratch.

Understood but it is not new other than to Fido standards.

 MtW> If a new standard (e.g. my FGHI URLs) is proposed, it's not 
 MtW> reasonable to delay it by analising all of the existing standards; 

Which are?  I am not convinced anyone really knows or even uses them or at
least knowingly uses them.

 MtW> proposal). Which of those would you consider no longer relevant, and 
 MtW> burdening?

The pkt and msg headers.  They only serve to slow down tossing which I believe
you pointed out in a prior message.  Without them it would be easier for you to
impliment your ideas on your system without calling them Fido standards.  Also
with a proper delimiter between fields (eg To, From) then identification of
where to place html tags and the such are readily determined and for the more
purist text based people, such as myself, it is even faster since no tags would
be needed.

This way everyone wins.

 MtW> While my ideas cannot be applied with current standards, they still 
 MtW> don't oppose. It's rather an extension.

See above.

 MtW> -- many users and many standards -- that don't use URL-like 
 MtW> networking; however, implementing Fidonet URLs is going to bring a 
 MtW> new level of automation and time-saving, where subscribing to an 
 MtW> echo could be done via single click, etc.

Right.  You should get more users then I will if that is true.  I don't mind.

 MtW> I am not sure if I understand the question properly, because these 
 MtW> words -- the network level -- may mean all sorts of things.

I believe in Fidonet they mean the transfer of information between Fido
addresses, mostly echomail and netmail.  Could also be files.  Bottomline is
that no networking takes place if the nodes aren't communicating.

 MtW> The absence of hypertext in Fidonet is the root of the majority of 
 MtW> the net's disadvantages,

I doubt it but prove me wrong.

 MtW> Meanwhile in the Web there is a gallery of tools specially designed 
 MtW> for coding and embedding simple pictures,

That is nice for the web.  I never embed anything here and use the internet
fine and have been using the internet fine before the web even existed.  The
web isn't the internet.  Neither is Fido for that matter.  Same with Google,
etc.  It is already possible for Fido to use the internet without the web. 
I've been using the inernet with Fido for over a decade now.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
 * Origin: Coffin Point BBS (1:140/13)