Subj : Notice To : mark lewis From : Nicholas Boel Date : Sun Feb 16 2014 20:16:20 Hello mark, On 16 Feb 14 12:34, mark lewis wrote to Nicholas Boel: NB>> Don't use garbage software and you won't have that problem. ml> that's not the problem, nick... the problem is some descriptions are ml> 1. too long (trying to list everything in the doc file) ml> 2. look like crap when rewrapped ml> 3. look like crap on web pages ml> the descriptions are supposed to conform to the FILE_ID.DIZ spec... Can you point me to these specs you're speaking of? The specs that I've always known have always been followed here. The fact that Tinytic (as well as some other softwares) wrap the diz in places that it shouldn't. Tinytic starts a file's description at column 40 or something like that, and then wraps the next line to the beginning of the line. Of course you're going to have messed up looking diz's if you don't display it properly! ml> the descriptions still look like crap when they get rewrapped or ml> displayed on web pages no matter what network they are hatched out ml> into... They shouldn't be re-wrapped at all. That's a software fault. Htick seems to display it just fine, why can't other softwares do the same? NB>> You will not have any limitations as to how I will hatch out your NB>> network's information packet that has been released the same way NB>> for years, ml> and they've been "not right" (as opposed to being wrong) for all this ml> time... I'd really like to know what's "not right" about it, Mark. file_id.diz's have been used for 20+ years, and that entire time I've seen them in a bunch of different variations. Even including the ascii characters above 128. While mine doesn't include that, I've seen that display just fine as well. ml> it isn't the software that's the problem and we are trying to get ml> folks to conform to the DIZ specs... it is also not just robert's FDN ml> but all the others where this has been happening... folks are ml> complaining again just like they do every few years... i get notes ml> from users asking me why my file descriptions look like crap and i ml> just point to the FDN distribution and whoever created the DIZ with ml> the mess inside it :shrug: Again, htick displays file_id.diz's the way they were meant to be displayed. I don't know why other software can't do the same? ml> eg: can you read the following?? i can't... ml> .g00r00_presents__________ _ ml> : :: : \ « ¬/ : ::: : ml> _ ____:_______/ / dEMONIC : ml> :: / / pRODUCTIONZ ml> _ :: / y/ /____________ ml> : / / / « ¬/ ml> / / / y/ / : ml> _ /___________/_ ______/ : ml> : : : :: / / :: ml> _ _: _ _____/____________/_ _ _ ml> : ml> mpe add-on for mystic bbs v1.05 ml> allows the user to select their current ml> message base via their arrow keys, using ml> : a lightbar system. mpe source included Yup. That displays exactly how it should be displayed. Even though it does look like it includes a few ascii characters above 128. The regular ascii (with the /'s and _'s) display a graphical "de" for the group "Demonic". Completely legible if you know what it's supposed to be. ml> what about this one? ml> [[ >> qUICK lOGON mPE fOR mYSTIC 1.04b // ]] ______>> ------->\____________>\---->\_______ ml> \_________ _//___ ________/_ _______/ ml> __/ -/ / -______/_ \ /- \_ ml> \______ _ //______ _ //___\/_ //mg ml> --->>_______//--->>_______//--->>______//--- ml> dEMONIC mODDING aND cODING pRODUCTIONZ 1999! That one looks fine too, and doesn't include anything over ascii 128. That logo spells out "DEM" for the same group as mentioned above. I believe this one even conforms to the file_id.diz format completely. ml> or this one?? ml> ,,a. Warlock ml> ad$$$$aaa ml> `$$$$$ `$$, `$$$$,a. ml> l$$$$ l$$ l$$$$$$ ml> :$$$$:: :$$$: $$$$$$ ml> l$$$l :l$$$l $$$$$$ ml> :$$$$ga,._ : :$$S"' ml> $$$y^ y"' ml> $$ ml> .. Warlock Pack viewer door ml> door for win32, linux, dos ml> --------------------------- ml> author Gossamer Axe ml> --------------------------- That one displays fine too. That's a "W" for the group that released it. Also standard ascii characters used. So I don't see a problem with this one either. ml> or this one... ml> ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ ml> °ßßß ÜÜÜÜÜ ß²ßUUU² ml> ÜÜÜÜÜga ÜÜUUUUUUUUUÜ _UUU² ml> ßßUUUUUU²±°ßßß°°UUUUUY UY°U² ml> ßUUUU² _UUUUY °ßÜU ml> ÜUUY_UUUUY _ÜÜ UUUUU UUU² ml> UU² _UßÜ°Y UUUÜ UUUUU _UU²² ml> U² UY ±Y UUUU ßUUUUY UUU² ml> Uß UU°°Y _UUUU _UUUU _UU²² ml> Ü _UUUU _UUUU _UUUU ßUU² ml> UYß_UUUU ° UUUU UUUU² UUU ml> UU UUUUU ²UUU° UUU²²Y U²²±°° ml> UUÜ ßUUUUܰܲ²UUUÜUUUU²ß _UUU ml> _UUUÜÜ ßßUUUUUUUUUUßß ÜÜUUU²² ml> Uß°Y²²ÜÜ ßßßßßß ßUU²² ml> _Y °±² Warlock _U²²Y ml> U°° °U pack #001 _UU ml> ßUU²ß BBS Mods, Darkness UY ml> _U IGMs, BBS Logos _Y ml> _Y Menus, etc., _ ml> ² Sept/2001 Ü ml> Ü Leech It! ÜÜUU ml> _UÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜUUUUUUUU²ßß ml> ßßßßßßßßßßßßßßß Now this one looks like crap. Something was converted on it somewhere. It probably had the ascii block and line characters in it, I'm assuming. ml> now, take a look at them on a web page... ml> http://www.wpusa.dynip.com/files2/FDIST/DDSBBS/ ml> http://www.wpusa.dynip.com/files2/FDIST/DDSDOORS/ With that being your webpage, now take a look at the plethora of door games and artpack's on htt://archives.thebbs.org .. Besides the block/line ascii characters being translated to x's and #'s, everything seems to display as it should. Maybe you didn't go the extra mile to make sure yours displays file_id.diz's that have been done this way for the last few decades (if you notice there are ACiD artpacks on there from 1993 and sooner)? I don't know. ml> the recent artpack release with a full graphic description is really ml> really bad when seen on a web page... it is much worse when it is all ml> wrapped... then there's what happens when it is cut short... i think i ml> finally was able to see that it was supposed to be a skull... It shouldn't be wrapped. It should be displayed exactly how it was meant to be displayed. The recent Blocktronics artpack release, I can agree, is very long, and is in all block ascii. That's the way they wanted to release it, and I'm not going to alter their artpacks in any way. Just as well, my hatching program displayed it perfectly. It is noone's choice but their own as to what software they use to take care of these tasks. I choose to use software that works in this case. So my offer still stands. If anyone wants their infopacks hatched out on Agoranet's FDN, I'll gladly do it without altering their release whatsoever. If the requestor doesn't want to hatch my infopack anymore, I'm completely fine with that, since I hatch it out in two other file areas as well as offer it up via FTP. But I'm not going to change how I've been doing things for the past however many years because someone's software can't do what mine seems to do just fine. Sorry. :) Regards, Nick --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701) .