[Coco] cocomag project: Questions for the users

[Joel Ewy]

John wrote:
> I'd rather have the second set of eyes on the output.  Just seems like the
> final results would be worth it.
>
>   

I think there always is a second.  It's just that if you change it at
all in the second check it goes back in for a third or more, until
nobody changes anything, IIUC.

JCE

> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of tim lindner
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [Coco] cocomag project: Questions for the users
>
> Joel Ewy <jcewy at swbell.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'd say that's generally what we want, but maybe it can be made more
>> explicit whether one is looking at a second check or the first check.  I
>> might fiddle around with spaces and whatnot just to make it look better,
>> but I might be less inclined to mess around with trivial things if I
>> knew it was the final check, and just let it go through if there weren't
>> any real errors.  I dunno.
>>     
>
> I have to admit I do this now. But only becuase I know the secret. :)
> I'll put an explicit message as to which check it is. But here is the
> secret:
>
> View the source of the web page, and look for an hidden for field titled
> "job". If the value is "A/..." then it is a first check, if it is
> "B/..." then it is a second check.
>
> I'll prolly remove this in a later version of the software. Letting the
> client handle state is a security risk.
>
>