> 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.
Well I think it's stupid.
And MCCW is not MCCM so it's not about being consequent. And besides, if
something stinks, why not change it? Nothing wrong 'bout that...
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
Bold also isn't used in the context, and that was what I was talking about.
You can't expect the writers of the texts to decide if a heading should be
bold or not... That's not a task of the writer, so you can simply say Bold
will not be used.
And I think underlined is definately used, what about URLs??? And I think if
you really want to stress (Dutch: benadrukken) something, italic (which is
also used for difficult English terms etc.) won't really do. And Bold looks
ugly, so underlining **will** do (while waving my hand).
> You could also use TeX-style: Hi, I want a certain word to be
> \emph{emphasized}!
Nah... don't know TeX.
> > 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.
That's what I meant. :)
> >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 of the author... also a very good idea!
And the comment-construction shouldn't be *that* difficult... fairly simple
CGI...
I could try to make it (good chance to learn CGI)...
> >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.
No, I don't think so.
When you release a new 'webzine', simply put every article in the right
section of the index (ofcourse alphabetisized). It's only a matter of adding
1 line per article.
Shouldn't be too hard...
> [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.
I am sure about it.
If I know there is a deadline, and the editor persues me (what definately
should happen!) that I should finish an article before it, I certainly will
get one ready.
If there is no deadline, it will take a very long time before I start
writing it, because everytime I think by myself "oh, there is no deadline,
so it doesn't really matter, I can as well do it tomorrow". And the next
day, the same.
This goes for me, and I think also for a lot of other people...
> > - 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.
No, really. Not a good idea.
There is an MSX forum out there, but I only check it very (very!)
occasionally. I have better things to do than regularly check it, and as the
time goes by it disappears between alot of other bookmarks and I forget
about it.
Okay, this probably doesn't go for me, because I will write for it, but I
think alot of others will.
I really, really think you should have a deadline, and also publish all
articles at the same time. Otherwise it will rather become some kind of
'knowledge-base' to which occasionally an article is added. Because 1 new
article per day like some other internet ezines will certainly not be
possible.
Other MSX fellows, please give your opinion on this too. It's important! (in
my eyes).
~Grauw
ps. I bet no-one understands my wave-hand joke... *sigh*...
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ICQ: 10196372
visit the Datax homepage at http://datax.cjb.net/
MSX fair Bussum / MSX Marathon homepage: http://msxfair.cjb.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
****
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/)
****
