Mystery FAQ, HTML-ising,

[cindysphynx]

Goat wrote (re the Mysteries FP):

> I just read the latest version of the Mystery FAQ and have
> several thoughts:
 
<snip> 

>Why not explain the categories
> (or something like them), then assign one or more of them to each
> question? (Kind of like the category symbols they use in the
> movie listing in the newspaper here ... )

That's a great idea, Mike.  Uh, um, is there any way I could beg you 
to write a Mysteries intro along these lines?  Your Pettigrew FAQ 
was so good, and you're so good at writing things like this, and 
you've already figured this out and  ::stroke, stroke, stroke::.  
So, how about it?  Please?

I'm still mulling the idea of whether we should add a symbol for 
each of the categories you mentioned.  I must admit to having a 
weakness for little symbols and cross-referencing and such, even 
when they don't really clarify things much, so I'm not sure I'm the 
best person to ask.  Anyone?

Goat again:

> 1) The worth of a Galleon has been cleared up in
> http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml:

Good point.  I'll delete that mystery.

> 2) The Quaffel question was cleared up by the film.

Hmmm.  Are we going to consider film issues as definitive canon?  
Maybe not generally, but it is hard to imagine the Quaffel question 
as very mysterious at this point.  No one has brought it up for 
ages.  I'll delete it unless someone objects.

> 3) I don't believe that JKR has made any definitive statement
> about Crookshanks. However, she does mention that he is "very
> smart cat" and refuses to say whether there is "more to him than
> meets the eye." See the following:
> http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/September_1999_Barnes_No
> ble.htm
> http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm
> 

OK, I can leave in the bit about Crookshanks.

Goat again: 

> 2) Use the Ctrl-K function, which allows you to assign a
> hyperlink to any piece of selected text. It will give you perfect
> links without bloating the text with URLs. The final html text
> will end up looking exactly the way you see it.
> 3) If you don;t want to bother with cntrl-K-ing things, still try
> to put your message numbers close to the part of your text to
> which they refer. Those cohorts of message numbers at the end of
> each point in the Mystery FAQ are pretty imposing. I would
> suggest putting message number references in brackets at the same
> place you would otherwise put a footnote marker.

Uh, now I am confused.  If I see a killer post that I want to have a 
hyperlink, exactly how should I indicate this?  Am I supposed to 
copy the URL for that post into the text, because that will get 
awfully clunky looking.  Can we do links like John used in the HBF 
that just say "Go"?  

So far, I've been adding the message numbers immediately after the 
text to which it relates, and I have been using bold type for the 
messages requiring links.  Should I re-format the message numbers 
that require links in some fashion?  I can go back and do that, but 
I need some guidance.

Cindy (who really did read and enjoy the Pettigrew FAQ, and is 
wondering aloud why it can't be uploaded and made available to 
everyone in its current form)