Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
- Subject: Re: Admin: a suggestion on the script corruption problem.
- From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:48:04 -0800
On 2/16/01 9:56 AM, "Chuq Von Rospach" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
If the users of these lists agree with me and someone's willing to put the
>
tools together, I'll be more than happy to host them on the list site for
>
download, and update the documentation to describe them and how to use them
>
and support their use on the list in an official way. I don't have the
>
resources to write these tools myself right now (or I would), but it seems
>
to me they'd be quick, straightforward, and easy to use.
>
>
This seems to me a way to make this work for people NOW, until I have time
>
to find a permanent solution that doesn't involve a workaround. And I
>
promise I *will* continue to look at that, this won't cause me to downgrade
>
it's priority or drop it off my todo list.
>
>
What do people think? I'm willing if you are, but I don't want to shove this
>
down your throats if you don9t think it's workable.
I think that that's a very good suggestion and will make life more pleasant
for us "regulars". I'm not sure that it will solve the problem of newbies
being confused and put off AppleScript, if they have to install and run
software to communicate on the mailing list. It is yet another hurdle that
may make AppleScript seem too difficult, when it shouldn't be so hard for
them. I guess "supporting their use on the list in an official way" could
include a URL in the signature at the bottom of the messages? That would
help a lot.
Is the idea that the decoder on users' machines would somehow know when a
comma is really a comma and when it's an option-L, when a
less-than-or-equals sign really means a less-than-or-equals and when it
means greater-than-or-equals - or will there be new substitution symbols
instead? It sounds a lot like what richard 23 has been suggesting for this
problem for four months now, doesn't it? richard has been recommending
something similar ever since the problem first cropped up in November, and
several times since. I never understood why his suggestion was being given
such short shrift. Or perhaps I've misunderstood completely.
Since you have consistently said that you cannot give a date for a permanent
fix, Chuq, most pointedly when I asked you if it would be "months rather
than years", any sort of workaround in the meantime would be welcome. Let's
try it, anyway.
--
Paul Berkowitz