true. But what is the problem of an div-container with an id? And it would be nice (IMHO) to have the possibility to add a url that links to further informations, wouldn't it?

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Alex &lt;mrzmanwiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:mrzmanwiki@gmail.com>> wrote: I think this would be a good idea. I've actually been considering something like this for my tools. My idea was to use multiple files. One would be for issues that would affect every tool, like if the webserver was going to be down. Others would be for issues that may only affect a couple tools, like one of the DB-servers being down, or high replag on a server. That way tools that don't need DB access or aren't significantly affected by high replag won't have unnecessary notices but the tools that do need it can still have the notice. Why so difficult? Put it into a div structure: <div id="notice"> <!-- *global* stuff goes here --> </div> <div id="notice-s1"> <!-- *s1* related stuff goes here --> </div> <div id="notice-s2"> <!-- *s2* related stuff goes here --> </div> <div id="notice-s3"> <!-- *s3* related stuff goes here --> </div> This way you can selectively choose to display the status of components relevant to the specific tool. Marco

Don't think too much in html. Some tools won't produce HTML but RSS, XML, TEXT, PDF or sth. How are they supposed to handle this? I'll opt for simple & plain text.

https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Peter Körner&lt;osm-lists(a)mazdermind.de&gt;

> chris schrieb: >> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette > I'll respect that from now on. But you also did a "bottom post",

That's an auto-added header added by Mailman. But yeah that was a

Bryan _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list:

Please consider making this file 666, so anyone can update the status, wiki-style?

Victor Vasiliev wrote: Maybe the people taking care of status.toolserver.org could set the status file to be copied to the toolserver whenever something is changed?