*What do you think?*
*What do you think?*
The only kind of renewal in Fidonet has only come from individual people with an idea, a concept of something lightyears away.
Just go for it, do something and if it's workable and appealing then a number of the current still live developers will include it.
Do not believe in the collaborative effort to get things done ... it
never has ... in IT.
Do not believe in the collaborative effort to get things done ... it TS>WD> never has ... in IT.
I have spent some time working with various industry standardization bodies. It is even more scary when you see them arguing what should be in the standards why ... Explains a lot!
when using Fido today I regularly hit the wall when I notice that I
would like to *attach at least a picture* to illustrate something.
Also, people keep sendig me fido messages that refer to pictures put
on their web space. This feels odd.
Also, the current practice for *text styles is limited* in application and not well-defined. Still, this seems to be the minor of the two issues.
when using Fido today I regularly hit the wall when I notice thatLook how does HotdogEd deal with that.
I would like to *attach at least a picture* to illustrate
something. Also, people keep sendig me fido messages that refer
to pictures put on their web space. This feels odd.
when using Fido today I regularly hit the wall when I notice that I would like to attach at least a picture to illustrate something.
What do you think?
Synchronet supports a commonly-recognized markup/style syntax in message bases: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:markup
Precissely yesterday I tested this. I inserted an UUencoded image in a message with WinPoint, and HotdogEd displayed it as an inline image
just fine.
Precissely yesterday I tested this. I inserted an UUencoded image
in a message with WinPoint, and HotdogEd displayed it as an
inline image just fine.
I've used UUencoding for years now for putting images or compressed archives inside of a message.
But does your reader show the images inline?
Hello All,
when using Fido today I regularly hit the wall when I notice that I would li to *attach at least a picture* to illustrate something. Also, people keep sendig me fido messages that refer to pictures put on their web space. This feels odd.
Also, the current practice for *text styles is limited* in application and n well-defined. Still, this seems to be the minor of the two issues.
I think this is really something that could/should be addressed in some way enable relevant contemporary communication through fido.
To adress this, I see _at least_ two options:
1) Do it fully email-style by using MIME with HTML text and embedded/referen
pictures. This will be a lot to implement and particularly difficult to
handle in 16-Bit software due to memory restrictions and lack of framewor
Also, memory comes to mind when considering the size of the resulting
messages. Using @SPLIT, these could be extended beyound 63k, but the
resulting messages might be considered an annoyance.
2) Define a simple fidonet-compatible way that is more in line with existing
fido technology (particularly a maximum message length of 63k) but still
enables including at least a picture and maybe simple text styles while
maintaining readability on non-compatible systems.
I find both alternatives interesting, but currently I prefer the latter with focus on embedding the picture. The idea would by to have something that is more like the ability to post a picture on social media platforms. So instea of providing half a text processor for creating formatted text, people can j include the picture with their fidonet mail and ideally the editor will recompress the picture as needed to a jpg to limit the resuling message size including the encoding picture to 63k.
My idea for the latter would be to include the .jpg as Base64 and add a klud to it for inline-display. This could also be done for multiple images.
An alternative would be including a link to the picture like we do today, bu enabling the reader to automatically download such pictures and maybe includ automated upload/linking of the image in the editor. However, that would be quite dependent on other services.
*What do you think?*
Regards,
Tim
My idea for the latter would be to include the .jpg as Base64 and add a
klud to it for inline-display. This could also be done for multiple
images.
An alternative would be including a link to the picture like we do today,
bu enabling the reader to automatically download such pictures and maybe
includ automated upload/linking of the image in the editor. However, that
would be quite dependent on other services.
*What do you think?*
Regards,
Tim
Tim, I like the last one. An OLR that would then include the picture
from a posted link, if I follow you right.
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 230:54:47 |
| Calls: | 55 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 50,127 |
| D/L today: |
28 files (3,495K bytes) |
| Messages: | 275,351 |