> > > Couldn't one include the extra <table> tag only when there is really more than
> > > one attribute per line.  All other lines could then be aligned properly.

I added that code in revision 1.471.

Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->

EX: 
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
BECOMES
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?

Just a thought.

Thanks

Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
(mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
-4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
to take more care in the future (:-)))

Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
put it in.

> Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> 
> EX: 
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> BECOMES
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks

No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!

> Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
> (mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
> -4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
> to take more care in the future (:-)))
> 
> Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
> put it in.
> 
> > Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> > constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> > things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> > 
> > EX: 
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> > BECOMES
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Thanks

I'm running a Debian package of elog with verision number 2.5.4+r1480-1. 
The revision of the elog client in this package is 1.21. 

I'm using the elog client to send entries generated by a script to my
logbook.  I want to format the body text of the entry using HTML, to include
links and images.  When I submit the entry with the elog client it is
submited as text and not HTML.  

The man page for the elog client does not mention any commandline options to
specify the formating of the entry and I have not found any info in this
forum on the issue.

Is it possible to submit an entry with a html body using the elog client?

> Is it possible to submit an entry with a html body using the elog client?

I added a "-H" flag for that. New version of elog.c under CVS and in the next
release.

> > Is it possible to submit an entry with a html body using the elog client?
> 
> I added a "-H" flag for that. New version of elog.c under CVS and in the next
> release.

Great!  Thanks.

Kristinn