Subject: updating the database

From: [email-masked] (D. egret)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 12:24:30 +0200

Thanks Bob, for changing the database format (to shorter lines).
I find it much more convenient to use. I have made several tests
and several real updates. It seemed to work fine...  Bravo !

Daniel

---

From: [email-masked] (anton koekemoer)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 21:36:46 EST

hi,

Good to see that the concurrent editing is working; in addition the new
shortened version of the database appears to be working fine. I agree, it's
great!

There was one minor fix that needed to be done before my version would look
right - this seems to be related to the fact that I use the html file as
input when creating my astroweb presentation. The problem was that a few
of the description fields (26 to be exact) had their trailing '}' on a line
by itself. When the html file is created at stsci, this results in a blank line
being inserted before the trailing </DD> for these records - which in turn
upsets the makefiles I use.

However I have now fixed all these records in the master database by putting
the trailing } on the end of the last description line containing text, which
looks better in any case from the point of view of consistency with all the
other description fields. My version of astroweb is also now back to normal.

In case this does cause some other kind of problem, I still have the list of
URLs for which I made this change.

						cheers,
						 - anton.

PS

Daniel writes:
>  Would someone propose a different wording ? (inactive ? lost ? ... ?).

:)
how about 'not working'..
My serious suggestion is 'URL inactive: ' or something involving the term URL.