Dear,

Les, we were talking about
quote:

it looks like that on our example UBB the problem with too long lines is over. At
least we know that the layout can be nice like in the earlier days.
during the "print-friendly view of this topic" our information is also processed in
another way.
which means:
during analyse of some boards with running UBB 6.3.1 we doesn't see too long lines,
which possible had to deal with a redesign of CGI code for this action. The based
information is also used by the "printer-friendly view of topics" action, which does
not have too long lines as text.
This was already so in the preview UBB 6.2.1 release.
So there should taken two actions:
  • verify too long lines as text and code in a new topic. Our conlusion - when we read
    LLigetfa's reaction in this topic from posted "06. August 2002 19:32" - we see that a
    very long text line is trunacting in the right way. So good news.
  • search on Infopop board for a possible solution. Mostly some guys suggest some
    corrections for it, or it is just a setting in UBB configuration, or there must be
    installed a patch for it.
Don't forget text in [code] and [/code] block will not have line wrap capabilities.
F.e. you see now the "05. August 2002" as date format instead of "05 August 2002".
In a new release this will be solved by Infopop.

Les, indeed too long lines can be see as "layout frustrations". To solve that we suggest to
use the "printer-friendly view" of those topics.

Jack, when there comes a new forum for more general-topics, off-topics, UBB-
topics and other none kixtart stuff we choose for general. Discussions are
also possible on a general forum, but what is the problem with the discussion of
kixtart related topic on a 'kixtart' forum.
A good subject description can influence the interest for it. Also the forum selected
may influence the interest for reading it. Only the "Today Active Topics" users see
mostly all topics.

Les, indeed as new forum requires new moderator(s). First let we regulate
it for the current forums.

Les, your note
quote:

I'm not to clear on our position. In one breath, you say "We find the suggestions
for updating forum description page of NTDOC great", which I infer as yes on the
"General" forum, as that is the only real change from the existing page.
In the next breath, you say "We don't find it necessary to create again a new forum".
If that is the case then what change of NT DOC's do you find "great"?
Les, there are differences between "forum names" and "forum descriptions". We support
the suggested descriptions by NTDOC, which doesn't infere that we need a "General"
forum.
When everybody wants a "general" forum we support his description for it too. So
we doesn't see that our reaction contains some contradictions.

Lonkero, we agree with you that there must come a voting issue.

greetings.

btw: thanks Henri with completing the recent upgrade. no big suprises for us.
we must only implement a little modification for the introduced known bug of date
specification.
_________________________
email scripting@wanadoo.nl homepage scripting@wanadoo.nl | Links | Summary of Site Site KiXforms FAQ kixtart.org library collection mirror MCA | FAQ & UDF help file UDF kixtart.org library collection mirror MCA | mirror USA | mirror europe UDF scriptlogic library collection UDFs | mirror MCA