Shoutbox

Suggestion: Include seconds in timestamp in chat logs - Printable Version

-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: Suggestion: Include seconds in timestamp in chat logs (/showthread.php?tid=64379)
Suggestion: Include seconds in timestamp in chat logs by cdfalcon24 on 08-02-2006 at 08:18 PM

The new XHTML chat logs look really nice! However, the timestamp only displays the hour and the minute, for example (12:34 PM). It would better show when messages were sent if the seconds were also included, as in previous versions of Messenger Plus! For example, (12:34:20 PM).

Patchou, could you please at least make it an option to record the timestamp accurate to the second instead of to the minute?

Also, I notice that the XHTML source uses &quot; a lot. This is not neccessary, quotation marks can be included directly and the XHTML will still be valid. For example, <tag style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif'">"To be, or not to be?"</tag>

OK, here are a couple of other things that could be improved in the XHTML source.

The DOCTYPE might as well be XHTML 1.1 rather than XHTML 1.0. The chat logs conform to version 1.1 and so that DOCTYPE describes them better.

I think I read somewhere that it is more appropriate to say encoding="utf-16" rather than encoding="UTF-16LE"

The <meta> tag is unneccessary.

RE: Suggestion: Include seconds in timestamp in chat logs by RaceProUK on 08-02-2006 at 10:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by cdfalcon24
Also, I notice that the XHTML source uses " a lot. This is not neccessary, quotation marks can be included directly and the XHTML will still be valid. For example, <tag style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif'">"To be, or not to be?"
It's still better to escape XHTML/XML special characters, just to be safe.
quote:
Originally posted by cdfalcon24
The DOCTYPE might as well be XHTML 1.1 rather than XHTML 1.0. The chat logs conform to version 1.1 and so that DOCTYPE describes them better.
I'm not sure if IE6 can understand XHTML 1.1 (IE6 is embedded in the Log Viewer).
quote:
Originally posted by cdfalcon24
I think I read somewhere that it is more appropriate to say encoding="utf-16" rather than encoding="UTF-16LE"
Only if you use a BOM (byte order mark) at the start of the file.
quote:
Originally posted by cdfalcon24
The &lt;meta&gt; tag is unneccessary.
It might be to the Log Viewer: you never know ;)
RE: Suggestion: Include seconds in timestamp in chat logs by cdfalcon24 on 08-02-2006 at 11:31 PM

quote:
It's still better to escape XHTML/XML special characters, just to be safe.
I disagree. I think it's fine not to escape them. However, it's not a big deal and I won't be upset if it's left the way it is.


quote:
I'm not sure if IE6 can understand XHTML 1.1
I tried changing the DOCTYPE to XHTML 1.1 and it works fine with IE6.


quote:
Only if you use a BOM (byte order mark) at the start of the file.
The chat logs already include byte order marks. While we're sort of on the subject, the chat logs might be better off in UTF-8. This is because UTF-8 uses only one byte per character for the characters I most frequently use, though UTF-8 documents can include any Unicode character.


quote:
It might be to the Log Viewer: you never know ;)
I'm more inclined to think that it's unneccessary, but you could be right.


Really, the chat logs are very well done. My major concern is that the seconds are not given on the timestamp.

Also...thanks to the moderator who combined my original 3 posts into one. I will try to use the Edit button more and the Post button less when I want to add things in the future.