> I do not agree with the things stated above.
> PC is PC. pc is bullshit, it is seen nowhere else.
> same goes for SCSI.
There's no point in disagreeing. It is simply like this: MCCM chose a standard
for doing things like this, so now we will conform to that standard. Once you
chose it, you have to stick to it... (Dutch: we moeten consequent blijven!)
> Basic
This is also an abbreviation, actually, it's an acronym. And 'pc' is more
peecee and scsi is more scusi. So, they are becoming some kind of acronyms.
> By the way, I think you should not 'change' the texts you recieve TOO much.
Ofcourse not. It would mean a lot of work! ;-)
> And if the author wants something to have a certain layout, he can use
> _this text is underlined_
YUCK! Rule number one: NEVER use underlined! It's an artifact of typewriters
that couldn't write in italics.
> /this text is italic/
You could also use TeX-style: Hi, I want a certain word to be
\emph{emphasized}!
> or HTML-alike is also possible:
> <I>this text is italic</I>
Fair enough.
> Bold will (hopefully?) not be used.
Well, it's WAY better than underlined! Professional printing NEVER uses
underlined, but DOES use Bold. For example, in section-headings.
> And if someone uses a _ or a / in an article, but you guys think it should
> be the other one, or think that it's overkill, then ofcourse you should
> change that.
What do you mean? Anyway, let us worry about layout.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You could also make an option where the reader can give feedback on
> articles after reading them. A bit like the questions you find in
>technical
> support sites of companies ("Did this article solve your question?").
> Using the feedback on previous articles, you know what subjects to
>schedule
> for future issues.
>Ah, yes. I really think at the bottom and top of EVERY article should
>be some 'comment'-construction, so people can see if there are any
>comments on the article (and if so, how much), and post new comments.
>That way, discussions can start based on those articles, or eventual
>errors can be corrected. Which is also motivating for the writers.
This is not so easy to implement. Ofcourse you can give comments. Well, we can
at least put the author's e-mail address to the article. Corrections will be
published, ofcourse. I think, in the first place, that discussions belong to
newsgroups. Results of discussions belong in the webzine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>However I DO think you should make some kind of big 'index' (including
>search), so people searching for a particular article for reference
>can easily find it. That's what I missed in the 'old' MCCM, when you
>know there was an article about something *somewhere*, but you have to
>search through the entire pile of magazines to find it (often
>resulting in not taking the effort at all).
Fine, but again: that's an incredible lot of work. If someone wants to do
this, he is very welcome to make this reality.
[about placing articles one at a time]
> I think this is not a good idea:
>I don't either.
> - Many authors work harder if there is a deadline.
>Indeed.
I don't think a deadline REALLY helps. But ok, you may be right in this.
> - If a lot of articles are placed on the site at the same time,
>readers are
> more likely to surf to the MCCW to read them.
>Fully agree.
I don't think so. If the articles are placed one by one, the readers will surf
to the MCCW site to check if there's something new and then read if there is.
Grtjs, Manuel ((m)ICQ UIN 41947405)
PS: MSX 4 EVER! (Questions? See: http://www.faq.msxnet.org/)
PPS: Visit my home page at http://bilderbeek.tsx.org/
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
