From: hancock@inland.com (Tom Hancock)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon
Subject: Re: The Net.Script!  Accept No Substitutes!
Date: 11 Aug 92 14:37:23 GMT
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1992Aug5.031427.5410@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, fong_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Julian H Fong) writes:
> 
> 	But keep those script revisions coming, though.  A beautiful piece
> of work like this deserves to be completed, at minimum.  By the way, about
> three months ago, when work on the net.script first started, somebody posted
> a set of guidelines on the script format, and rules for labelling the
> Subject line in followups.  Admittedly, no one ever really followed those
> rules, but I think that article may be useful to have around.
> 
> 	Could the original poster or anyone who saved the article please
> re-post it?  Thanks in advance.
> --

	Well, I posted some suggestions about subject lines a while back.
Here's the original posting:

===========================================================================
Toonsters,
	I've been a little confused lately with how the net.script is being
posted.  I'm tossing out a few suggestions here, see what you think.  In the
end, _The Omnipotent Editor_ must decide on the exact form for posting script
suggestions.

1)	Subject headings.

	Periodically, the Editor posts the current version of the script.  As a
	subject heading for the posting he uses the form:

		net.script xxxx y.0

	Where xxxx is either a working title or a number.  I suggest a number,
	as a title may be confusing if it changes.  The y.0 is a major version
	number, which is incremented whenever the Editor posts the current
	version.  ***Only the Editor can assign a new major version number.***
	For example, for script number 1, the third posting by the Editor will
	be:

		net.script 1 3.0

	Anybody who changes/adds to the script will post it with the script
	number/title and major version number, followed by his name (or mailbox)
	followed by his own version number.  ***It is the responsibility of each
	author to keep track of his own version numbers***.  For example, if
	I make changes/additions to script 1, version 3.0, I'll post it with
	the subject heading:

		net.script 1 3.hancock.0

	If I wish to suggest changes/additions to someone else's post, I append
	my name to the version path:

		net.script 1 3.smith.0.hancock

	The problem with this, of course is depth of replys.  We can run into
	a situation like:

		net.script 1 3.smith.0.hancock.12.jones.2.johnson.0.gleeble.12

	and so on.  It should be the Editor's responisibility to condense the
	replys into a new major version.  If you reply to a posting that already
	has your name.version, simply increment your version number.

	Comments can be added on the subject line at the end.  Perhaps enclosed
	in parenthesis?

		net.script 1 3.hancock.0 (Babs does a wheelie!)

	Posts about a particular script in general leave off the version path:

		net.script 1 (I think it's too long.)

	Posts about no particular script, leave off the script number/title too:

		net.script (What's our next script?)

	Notice that each time you post a version of the script, it is a *new*
	post, not a reply.  We should *not* see:

		Re: net.script 1 3.hancock.3

When I first thought of this idea, it sounded simple.  Now that I've written it
down, it sounds too complicated.  What do you think?  Typography could always be
changed.  For instance, the version path could be delimited:

		net.script 1 3/hancock.3/smith.1
or
		net.script 1 3;hancock.3;smith.1
or some such.



2)	Should we have a set way to delimit comments within the script?  Perhaps
	[Editor's comments surrounded by brackets] and {everybody else's in
	braces} ?

3)	Would it help to keep track of the script if the Editor would number the
	lines with each major version?
	
========================== End of Original Post ============================

						Tom 
-- 
hancock@inland.com          |My company and I agree:
Tom Hancock -- Assoc. Engr. |    I speak for myself, and not the company!
<i> Inland Steel Co. <i>    |
=============================================================================
"Insert pithy, witty .sig quote here."
Xref: sparky alt.tv.tiny-toon:3759 rec.arts.animation:3403 rec.arts.tv:16664