How2 blog via lynx/elinks ?

We can't deny that the clik-kiddies are increasingly displacing
the more efficient protocols like Usenet, with blogs.

For one who has only dial-up connectivety, I need to: receive,
edit reply & send reply in 2 separate connection sessions.
So it's convenient to copy-paste between the blog-'browser'
and a separate 'editing-text'.

I try to use the old-proven method of citing: ">"; with
line len of < 72. But since normal/fad-following users,
get the auto-line-len facility of their standard browsers,
apparently ">"-usage is inappropriate ?
Eg. a mobile user with lin-len-display of < 72, would
not get my ">" lines correctly formatted.

Does any body else blog-reply via lynx or elinks ?
This has the advantage of not needing a bloated-browser
for each pending reply.

== TIA.

On 7/23/2009 9:00 PM, no-(E-Mail Removed)d wrote:
> We can't deny that the clik-kiddies are increasingly displacing the
> more efficient protocols like Usenet, with blogs.

The (aptly called) "clik-kiddies" have to know about "...more efficient
protocols like Usenet..." first. Though I do agree with you and feel
your pain. :{

> For one who has only dial-up connectivety, I need to: receive, edit
> reply & send reply in 2 separate connection sessions. So it's
> convenient to copy-paste between the blog-'browser' and a separate
> 'editing-text'.

If you are trying to not burn connection time while editing replies, I
don't see many options other than to make two connections.

> I try to use the old-proven method of citing: ">"; with line len of <
> 72. But since normal/fad-following users, get the auto-line-len
> facility of their standard browsers, apparently ">"-usage is
> inappropriate? Eg. a mobile user with lin-len-display of < 72, would
> not get my ">" lines correctly formatted.

A couple of points:

1) Do *NOT* let the incompleteness of something cause you to not follow
long accepted and followed standards.

2) Format=flowed is your /friend/. (Use a line length of 72 - 78.)

3) You might try indicating replies differently, with out the leading
character so that when the lines are incorrectly re-wrapped for the
given display they will not have the leading (reply / quote) character
in the middle of the line.

> Does any body else blog-reply via lynx or elinks? This has the
> advantage of not needing a bloated-browser for each pending reply.

As long as the browser of your choice will work with the blog, I see no
reason why /what/ browser you use matters.



Grant. . . .

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 7/23/2009 9:00 PM, no-(E-Mail Removed)d wrote:
>> We can't deny that the clik-kiddies are increasingly displacing the more
>> efficient protocols like Usenet, with blogs.
>
> The (aptly called) "clik-kiddies" have to know about "...more efficient
> protocols like Usenet..." first. Though I do agree with you and feel your
> pain. :{
>
>> For one who has only dial-up connectivety, I need to: receive, edit reply &
>> send reply in 2 separate connection sessions. So it's convenient to
>> copy-paste between the blog-'browser' and a separate 'editing-text'.
>
> If you are trying to not burn connection time while editing replies, I don't
> see many options other than to make two connections.
>
>> I try to use the old-proven method of citing: ">"; with line len of < 72.
>> But since normal/fad-following users, get the auto-line-len facility of
>> their standard browsers, apparently ">"-usage is inappropriate? Eg. a
>> mobile user with lin-len-display of < 72, would not get my ">" lines
>> correctly formatted.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1) Do *NOT* let the incompleteness of something cause you to not follow long
> accepted and followed standards.
>
> 2) Format=flowed is your /friend/. (Use a line length of 72 - 78.)
>
> 3) You might try indicating replies differently, with out the leading
> character so that when the lines are incorrectly re-wrapped for the given
> display they will not have the leading (reply / quote) character in the
> middle of the line.
>
>> Does any body else blog-reply via lynx or elinks? This has the advantage
>> of not needing a bloated-browser for each pending reply.
>
> As long as the browser of your choice will work with the blog, I see no
> reason why /what/ browser you use matters.
>
What I find is that it's not clear how you're supposed to arrange things,
and there often isn't a means to preview what you've typed (that varies,
sometimes it's there, sometimes the preview isn't). And what looks good
when viewed with Lynx may not look good on a graphic browser (or
vice versa). I thought I'd figured it out, but in some recent cases
ended up with a badly formatted result, so it seems to vary.

Of course, an increasingly common problem is that they have one of
those graphic fields that you are supposed to type in, and that makes
things hard (at the least) when using a text only browser. There
again, it seems to vary, sometimes I post a comment and nothing happens,
and it turns out there was one of those graphic things to type in, but
it was invisible (ie not even something that says "type in what you see"),
while other times there's something to indicate the need.

That's not helpful, but I'm still trying to figure out what varies. It's
an odd situation, I got accused of ranting because of bad formatting
recently (in that case, it was definitely different from what I'd noticed
previously), as if I was some newcomer, when the reality is I'm forced
to adapt since the newcomers don't want to come to the old spaces.

Michael

On 7/23/2009 11:30 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> What I find is that it's not clear how you're supposed to arrange
> things, and there often isn't a means to preview what you've typed
> (that varies, sometimes it's there, sometimes the preview isn't).
> And what looks good when viewed with Lynx may not look good on a
> graphic browser (or vice versa). I thought I'd figured it out, but
> in some recent cases ended up with a badly formatted result, so it
> seems to vary.

*nod*

I've taken the practice of trying to limit ASCII drawings (or other
white space dependent layouts) to a minimum unless I know that others
can display it properly.

This really means that I can usually only reply in pure unformatted text.

> Of course, an increasingly common problem is that they have one of
> those graphic fields that you are supposed to type in, and that makes
> things hard (at the least) when using a text only browser. There
> again, it seems to vary, sometimes I post a comment and nothing
> happens, and it turns out there was one of those graphic things to
> type in, but it was invisible (ie not even something that says "type
> in what you see"), while other times there's something to indicate
> the need.

*nod*

A CAPTCHA would be a problem for lynx (and the likes). Though Dillo
might be a good option. Dillo is both small and fast with out all the
bloat that other browsers have.

> That's not helpful, but I'm still trying to figure out what varies.
> It's an odd situation, I got accused of ranting because of bad
> formatting recently (in that case, it was definitely different from
> what I'd noticed previously), as if I was some newcomer, when the
> reality is I'm forced to adapt since the newcomers don't want to come
> to the old spaces.

In the case of people ranting against you... Well, there will always be
trolls, no matter the medium. Simply explain why you did what you did
and move on.

I generally identify a few people that I see frequently and watch their
reactions to gage my actions. (YMMV)



Grant. . . .


P.S. I'm still trying to come up with a good way to integrate RSS and
blogs with newsgroups / email as I think they are good front ends to an
even better back end.