World: r3wp

Thanks for the comments, Graham.


3D....Possibly.....But there is one script whose name begins 3D (grandfathered 
in before we insisted names start witha letter), so it could be genuine.


Download....From the "sorry did you mean" page, you are one click 
away from the download link -- so would cluttering that page with 
extra links be that helpful to those who want to view a script.

Mmm... also it seems wrong to try to fix another program's error. 
The original program with the error should be fixed, not all the 
programs which might get its erroneous output.

Normally people paste links like this http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=tiffreader.r

Sure Anton .. fix your email client !

But those links are not usable by Rebol

So I have to right click on the download link and copy link location

True.....But the page you get to does have a "download script" link. 
 That is usable by REBOL.

I'd rather just you fix the direct link so that it's usable by Rebol 
... or, put the download on the page so I can double click and control 
C

I'm fairly sure it's not my email client (which is Thunderbird). 
I thought it was some problem with ecartis which we never got around 
to fixing.

Or, you have some javascript that copies the download link to my 
clipboard

We did try to make the direct link usable by REBOl......But that 
is not easy as we have to escape chats like & and <

chats ==> chars !

well, just detect what client it is and send the right thing

if the client is rebol .. we want the script !

Link as above not usable by rebol; because PATH-THRU has simplistic 
algorithm for mapping url -> filepath, isn't it?

Nice idea, Graham..... But the REBOL script might be a spider/inder 
like RIX; and so expects a HTML page.
We can't second guess cases like that.

But yeah, I think it should be a bit less work to change rebol.org's 
urls than improve rebol's path-thru.

yes you can ... because a spider will identify itself

Bugger the javascript idea !  (Gawd!)

That's just piling on complexity.

(and I don't run with javascript most of the time).

anyway I don't think it matters what spiders pull down

No need for second guessing -- REBOL.org already has the "feed me 
a plain text" link -- use the Download script link for that.
That's simplicity......Isn't it!?

just a few characters difference

No, because you cause every single person who recieves a rebol org 
link extra work

A caveat for changing rebol.org's urls; there is a history of rebol.org's 
urls in mail postings etc. Changing them would invalidate those historical 
links (unless you also maintain support for those old links).

Anton, one doesn't change the link you just change the behaviour

If it's a browser .. give them a browser approprate view

Everyone else ... send them the script in an executable format

I feel similarly to Graham on that one. (ie. it's simple ok, but 
annoying).

Sorry, if I'm not clear, my head is quite foggy.

If any agent uses the HTML link, we send them the HTML page.

If any agent uses the plain-text link, we send them the plain text.

Anything else is likely to lead to complications for some users whose 
expectations we'd be disregarding.

It is a tough problem...

Yes, a simple request, but a tough problem to get right in all practical 
cases.

Sunanda, how did you change the simetrics matching? (I noticed there 
were several algorithms in the simetrics.r file, so I suppose you 
 selected a better one.)

And I just retested the 3dmoney.r page, now money.r is first in the 
suggestions list.
Nice one.

Thanks for retesting.

We use a couple of the algos, and then weight the results.


In addition, we do some other stuff -- like give additional weight 
if the first char matches; or if the lengths are similar.


And we gave some extra weight if the search string was fully contained 
within the script name (eg some bonus when matching "Apple.r" against 
"an-apple-script.r" (ignoring the .r of course).

What was missing was some extra weight if the script name was fully 
contained in the seach string (Money.r is fully wthin 3dmoney.r)....Adding 
that test raised its relevance.

Yep, the users are always wrong!

Mind your hyperbole, Graham!

Sometimes users ask for things that are not practical for other users, 
and thus us poor developers have to make choices that can leave some 
unhappy :)
Suppose I wanted this code to execute the first code block....

  do http://synapse-ehr.com/forums/showthread.php?120-RebGUI-table

....That's a reasonable request for me. But is it for all users, 
such as Rixbot?

You're missing the point ... if you want to make it easy for users 
to test scripts ..you need to make sure that the links the users 
pass around are usable by rebol

So either educate the users or change your server script

Or, as Mohammed was wont to do ...

Would a rebol function named "get-rebol.org-script" in your user.r 
(or built-in to rebol) help alleviate the problem at all?

It would just convert a "view-script.r" link into a "download-a-script.r" 
link, so that users take, for example, the money.r link and type 
this into their console:


 do get-rebol.org-script http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=money.r

I fire up rebol consoles everywhere .. so I would need to have that 
function everywhere. Much simple to fix the source.

Simpler for _you_ if we change the source; but perhaps not simpler 
for _others_ who expect it as it is.

Another even easier solution (easier for me, anyway:)


....In theory, REBOL does hunt through verbiage looking for "REBOL 
[" and starts executing from there.


So If the R2/R3 interpretor also de-escaped strings like < then 
the view-script would be executable.
Why not curecode/RAMBO that as a request!?

My 2 cents:  I like the way the links work now, but I also echoed 
Graham's request when I initially started using rebol.org.  Is it 
possible to hide a copy of the actual (downloadable script) code, 
at the top of the web page, so that it's executable by REBOL, but 
not visible by those using a browser?

Nice idea. But there is no foolproof way that does not leave someone 
with a screenreader seeing (or not seeing) double.

Also, may mess things up for (the few I hope) people with early CSS 
implementations in their browsers.


I'm still looking for an argument to convince me that one URL should 
serve two separate resources depending on user-agent sniffing.

You want an argument??  Let's step outside and discuss this!