> 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...
MCCW is still a continuation of MCCM! Sort of. This is just something Frank
wants. Don't make that big deal out of it.
> > > 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.
Ofcourse, the only thing you need is that the writer can make clear that a
certain part needs to be emphasized. The way it is emphasized depends on the
layout. Try to read a book about typesetting text, like Knuth's. Also, just
for fun, read a LaTeX manual... ;-). So if you want something emphasized, type
something like \emph{this}, in LaTeX style (e.g.)
> 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).
Nope. Underlined is really never used, except for URL's indeed. Check it!
Emphasizing (benadrukken dus) is really done with italic. But PLEASE! This is
a useless discussion! We decide about layout not you. Be happy with it. Italic
will really do, just as in every book it does. And really: underlining is an
artifact of typewriters!
> > You could also use TeX-style: Hi, I want a certain word to be
> > \emph{emphasized}!
>
> Nah... don't know TeX.
So what? The example was clear, wasn't it! So now you leared one LaTeX
command, and now you can make clear that a certain part of your sentence needs
to be emphasized. But if I were you, I'd try to learn some more about LaTeX,
because it teaches you a lot about layout, typography and more of these things.
> 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)...
I know cgi a little bit (actually, Perl), but I'm not getting further than a
simple mail-script. Anyway, it's really not that important (yet). First we
need articles and permanent authors.
> > 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...
Yeah ok, I thought you were talking about the older MCCM articles.
> > [about placing articles one at a time]
> > 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.
So: still one week to go! ;-)
> 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.
So: in fact, you are a lamer then! ;-)
> This goes for me, and I think also for a lot of other people...
Yup, lots of lamers around...
> > 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.
Well, we are not all like you. I check the newsgroup every day, as well as the
Parallax homepage. It's not important if people check the MCCW only once a
month. Then he still has all articles in one go! (From his point of view!)
> 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.
Nope. Unless you guys out there really start to write!
> Other MSX fellows, please give your opinion on this too. It's important! (in
> my eyes).
More important: getting articles and authors first!
> ps. I bet no-one understands my wave-hand joke... *sigh*...
Nope, I guess not. (Don't think that I do!)
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/)
****
