Hi Andrew,
Applied. Thanks! :) It looks really nice, now this is the default
stylesheet.
Kind regards,
-- nibble
On Wed, 5 May 2010 14:14:41 -0400
Andrew Antle wrote:
> Hello nibble -
>
> $ hg log | sed 5q
> changeset: 35:6903be285e65
> tag: tip
> user:Andrew Antle
> date:
Why do I get mail on the *suckless* mailing list that *literally*
contains 10 pages of css? ("suckless" web framework right)
Is this some kind of weird parallel universe or something, because
please teleport me back
M.
Hello nibble -
$ hg log | sed 5q
changeset: 35:6903be285e65
tag: tip
user:Andrew Antle
date:Wed May 05 14:09:17 2010 -0400
summary: Created new stylesheet based on suckless.org and garbe.us,
$ cat sw.diff
diff -r eb1e40b20c42 -r 6903be285e65 style.new.css
--- /dev/n
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Uriel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Paul Malherbe wrote:
>> Again I totally agree with Uriel, rather use a good scripting language like
>> python ;-)
>
> Uhu? It would be impossible to write something like werc in Python ,
> the unix command pipeline i
On 08/04/10 11:45, Uriel wrote:
Uhu? It would be impossible to write something like werc in Python ,
the unix command pipeline is one of the most powerful software
concepts ever invented.
I have made an attempt to code sw.cgi in python and have it working.
Maybe not the best coding but it co
Am 07.04.10 07:25, schrieb pancake:
Is not the same... Backticks keeps newlines, but $() merges all lines
into a single one. I'm not sure if this behaviour is affected by IFS
Well, in ksh93 and bash 4.0 on OpenSolaris build 134, ksh and bash 3.0
on solaris 10 and ksh and bash 2.0 on solaris 9
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Paul Malherbe wrote:
> Again I totally agree with Uriel, rather use a good scripting language like
> python ;-)
Uhu? It would be impossible to write something like werc in Python ,
the unix command pipeline is one of the most powerful software
concepts ever inven
On 4 April 2010 23:32, Paul Malherbe wrote:
> Again I totally agree with Uriel, rather use a good scripting language like
> python ;-)
While I personally would choose scripting in a decent scripting
language over doing anything but basic stuff in a shell script, one
very valid reason for choosing
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Noah Birnel wrote:
> I use backticks out of habit... and maybe ignorance. Can you explain
> your preference?
They are confusing:
echo $( echo $( echo $( echo str ) ) )
echo ` echo \` echo \\\` echo str \\\` \` `
echo $( echo \\ )
echo ` echo \\\ `
Backticks ar
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:23:46AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:05 AM, anonymous wrote:
> > If "back" moves you to upper level, it is not same as above, it require
> > only 1 click. If "back" moves you to previous page in your history,
> > 1 click too.
>
> Right, back s
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:05:09PM +0100, twfb wrote:
> On 21:26 Tue 06 Apr, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
> Well crafted index pages combined with breadcrumbs can create very
> usable websites, even when they are quite large. It is also useful in
> printed documents as it shows where the document can b
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:05 AM, anonymous wrote:
> If "back" moves you to upper level, it is not same as above, it require
> only 1 click. If "back" moves you to previous page in your history,
> 1 click too.
Right, back should act like cd -
> Adding links to main page in every document is like
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Nibble wrote:
> Done :)
>
> Use:
> make config
> # the first time, and every time you want to use the default config)
> make install ...
>
> I also complete the apache example in the README indicating how to
> forbid the access to sw.conf.
Awesome. Thanks, man
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:26:14PM +0200, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:50:07PM +0400, anonymous wrote:
> > You don't put same symlinks (to ~/doc, ~/src etc.) in every directory of
> > your filesystem. Most directories have only one link to them. Then why
> > should you pu
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:55:00 -0400
Andrew Antle wrote:
> [and...@arch sw-build-new]$ cat sw.log
> changeset: 24:5aa227c711bc
> tag: tip
> user:Andrew Antle
> date:Wed Apr 07 06:35:41 2010 -0400
> summary: Moved configuration to sw.conf. Too slow?
Done :)
Use:
mak
[and...@arch sw-build-new]$ cat sw.log
changeset: 24:5aa227c711bc
tag: tip
user:Andrew Antle
date:Wed Apr 07 06:35:41 2010 -0400
summary: Moved configuration to sw.conf. Too slow?
[and...@arch sw-build-new]$ cat sw.diff
diff -r e2300ba049de -r 5aa227c711bc sw.cgi
---
Is not the same... Backticks keeps newlines, but $() merges all lines
into a single one. I'm not sure if this behaviour is affected by IFS
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Noah Birnel wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 01:03:55PM -0400, n...@lavabit.com wrote:
Semi unrelated question: why are so ma
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 01:03:55PM -0400, n...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Semi unrelated question: why are so many people at suckless using ` `
> instead of $( ) ? I've seen it here, dmenu_path, surf's config.h... etc.
>
> $( ) only fails in very, very old shells... think original bourne
I use backti
On 21:26 Tue 06 Apr, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:50:07PM +0400, anonymous wrote:
> > You don't put same symlinks (to ~/doc, ~/src etc.) in every directory of
> > your filesystem. Most directories have only one link to them. Then why
> > should you put links to upper leve
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:40:59 -0400
m g wrote:
> In reference to
> http://nibble.develsec.org/hg/sw/file/80e2f5765b48/sw.cgi ...
>
> Is there a reason on line 20 relies on javascript as opposed to
> something such as the tag?
>
> echo
> "window.location=\"${PREFIX}${BIN}\";"
>
> vs
>
> echo "
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:50:07PM +0400, anonymous wrote:
> You don't put same symlinks (to ~/doc, ~/src etc.) in every directory of
> your filesystem. Most directories have only one link to them. Then why
> should you put links to upper levels in every directory (and even file)
> of your websit
In reference to http://nibble.develsec.org/hg/sw/file/80e2f5765b48/sw.cgi ...
Is there a reason on line 20 relies on javascript as opposed to
something such as the tag?
echo
"window.location=\"${PREFIX}${BIN}\";"
vs
echo ""
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 05:49:18PM +0100, Kai Hendry wrote:
> As for HTML, don't use . Use .
> Same goes for
> Instead of , use
Instead of you can use . is deprecated alias for
in HTML 4 and redefined for another purpose in HTML 5, but it is
still for creating lists.
By the way, I don't lik
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:01:44 +0200
Paul Malherbe wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is there any way to exclude the side-bar (menu) from scrolling with
> the body?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Malherbe
>
> +27 (0) 21 6711866
> +27 (0) 82 9005260
You can do it adding "display: block;" to "#side-bar" in style.css
R
Hi
Is there any way to exclude the side-bar (menu) from scrolling with the
body?
Regards
Paul Malherbe
+27 (0) 21 6711866
+27 (0) 82 9005260
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. "Is this the
> end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both!" In making your
In case it's not clear: implicit end tags are _valid_ html, and
completely unambiguous. E.g
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 12:30:35 PDT Mate Nagy wrote:
HTML is not XML. don't confuse them.
Of course it isn't. But there are some similarities, both of them being
branches on the SGML family tree.
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
>>> was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until r
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:52:14PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester wrote:
> > As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more
> > sense to me than tags, and here again, no closing tag is required.
no closing tags are required for eit
On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester wrote:
> it struck me that my email client was giving me an elegant example of
> how the need for a closing tag can be eliminated. See how the '>'
> character is used?
>
> As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more
> sense to me than
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote:
On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
> Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
> was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
> that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
> faster was totally bunk).
My point was not that we sh
Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
faster was totally bunk).
Which is one of the many reasons why XHTML is (thankfully) dead with
HTM
On 04/05/2010 03:33 AM, Nibble wrote:
As for HTML, don't use. Use.
Same goes for
Instead of, use
Is it just a aesthetic issue?
No it's HTML5.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy wrote:
> > This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no
> > results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an
> > ideal, I find it much
Hey,
On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy wrote:
> This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no
> results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an
> ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web
> markup as *minimalist* as
On 4/4/10, Mate Nagy wrote:
> ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web
> markup as *minimalist* as possible (e.g. no closing tags, no quotes
> where you can skip them, no CSS, no JS, the simplest <=HTML4
> formatting). This will make your page work on all browsers f
Hi,
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:49:18 +0100
Kai Hendry wrote:
> I don't like URLs with "sw.cgi" in them or the .md suffix.
You can use the name that you want, just rename sw.cgi and edit the
variable "BIN="/sw.cgi". Then configure your http server for treating
that file or the files under the directo
Awesome i will give it a go.
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 05:51:52AM +0200, Nibble wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing a little (68 LOC) "web-framework" is sh. I think that the
> most remarkable features are:
> * Markdown support
> * Only depends on some standard commands: 'echo', 'grep', 'ls' and
> 'sed'.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:10:31 -0300
Axel Bayerl wrote:
> Sry, wrong URL
>
> http://tinyurl.com/page-validator2
>
Fixed, although I found some validation errors with blocks like
..., which are related to md2html (coded by
yiyus). Maybe he could fix it, but I don't know if it really deserves
the e
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:50:29AM +0200, c...@wzff.de wrote:
> [...]
> Ugh, HTML-Mail
> [...]
And not only that, but also a full top quote. Actually, that was about
the worst mail I ever had the displeasure to read.
pgpzNDFp4KwZp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ugh, HTML-Mail
I'm so not going to read this. Please change your mail client to something sane.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:32:58AM +0200, Paul Malherbe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/04/10 00:02, Uriel wrote:
> cite="mid:g2m5d375e921004041502xe31f4cby6cfae45b67e18...@mail.gmail.com"
> type=
On 05/04/10 00:02, Uriel wrote:
I just want to say thanks for reminding me how absolutely hideous sh
scripts are and to stay away from them.
I honestly can't see why anyone would willfully write anything in sh
anymore (of course, plain sh is better than using bash, ksh or any
other horrible
I just want to say thanks for reminding me how absolutely hideous sh
scripts are and to stay away from them.
I honestly can't see why anyone would willfully write anything in sh
anymore (of course, plain sh is better than using bash, ksh or any
other horrible extensions of an already awful thing).
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 15:40:44 -0400
Andrew Antle wrote:
> Hi nibble -
>
> I really like sw. I've wanted to run werc on my server, but I can't
> run 9base; plus I understand sh a bit more than rc (must be rectified
> :). One thing I've noticed is that files with dashes in the name cause
> sw to go
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Nibble wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing a little (68 LOC) "web-framework" is sh. I think that the
> most remarkable features are:
> * Markdown support
> * Only depends on some standard commands: 'echo', 'grep', 'ls' and
> 'sed'.
> * Easy configuration
> * Create a web
>> # grep thinks the second argument is a file
>> > BL="^index.md$ ^images$" # Black list
>> BL="^index.md$\|^images$" # Black list
>
> Wrong, take a look at this line:
> BL=`echo ${BL} | sed -e "s/\( \+\|^\)/ -e /g"`
Yes, -e allows you to do this. However, in the original code you had
> BL="^i
I don't like URLs with "sw.cgi" in them or the .md suffix.
Why CGI? I prefer the compiler type approach of ikiwiki.info
The first bit of code with the window.location= can surely be done
better with an Apache CGI catchall redirect thing. Same does for the
next block which I assume is some sort of
Hi,
First, thanks for the feedback :) Let's comment some of your points
> This code is horrible
Thanks to mails like yours I'll try to improve it. Take into account
that it is the very first version.
> # grep thinks the second argument is a file
> > BL="^index.md$ ^images$" # Black list
> BL
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:08:03AM -0300, Axel Bayerl wrote:
> What you can try now, is to make it pass the validator:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/page-validator [validator.w3.org]
I want to comment on this:
page validation is an illusion, because there are no "web standards"
except for what the bro
Sry, wrong URL
http://tinyurl.com/page-validator2
What you can try now, is to make it pass the validator:
http://tinyurl.com/page-validator [validator.w3.org]
ive been working on one for a while, 'element' on gitorious/rubyforge/repo.or.cz
1461 lines of ruby if sloccount is accurate. includesa full Filesystem-backed
key/value/triple-store with range query and web-arch complaint API. using it as
a mail app as well, screenshot:
http://i574.photobucket.
This code is horrible
> #!/bin/sh
> # sw - 2010 - nibble
>
> # Configuration
> TITLE="foo.org" # Site title
> SUBTITLE="" # Site subtitle
> SITE="site" # Site folder
# grep thinks the second argument is a file
> BL="^index.md$ ^images$" # Black list
BL="^i
Hi,
I'm writing a little (68 LOC) "web-framework" is sh. I think that the
most remarkable features are:
* Markdown support
* Only depends on some standard commands: 'echo', 'grep', 'ls' and
'sed'.
* Easy configuration
* Create a web site is as easy as creating folders for sections and
markdown
55 matches
Mail list logo
