Tech: Posting in fonts.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: Snuffy
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 03:30 PM

  This should be monospaced
  
  This should be in Arial, a sans serif font
  
  So you can specify other fonts within the <pre> tags
  

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 04:19 PM

True Snuffy.

You can specify a specific font almost anywhere. If you don't specify it there are "different" defaults for the cite and pre tags.

It remains that the font you specify has to be one each individual who reads it has installed or it doesn't do anything. And I can easily remove Arial from my machine if I don't like it. I can tell my browser to use "BeesKnees" whenever you specify Arial. It's the viewers' choice, not the writer's.

In this case, where you've specified the font and size, the use of the <pre> tag is redundant, since you've overridden what the tag does. Without the font spec, the tag will always display in a monospace, so your chords will line up with your verses - which was, in what's above, the whole point of suggesting its use.

If you really have a reason, then calling for a different font is pretty easy and may occasionally be justified. As long as you use fonts that most people have, it shouldn't cause problems. It won't always work for all viewers, so random use should be minimized.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 05:53 PM

Useful stuff!

Arial has been the default font for Micro$oft Office in the various versions I've used but I'm told that, for all new versions, Micro$oft has changed its default font to one (apparently sans serif) that they regard as easier to read on screens, as most people they're interested in do most of their reading on screens rather than on paper. So it may be that some of the discussion above will be repeated in the future.

And my apologies to Joe Offer. This morning I saw my first posting above and it read "Jim's and Joe's stuff came through fine on Safari, with one exception. Joe's just sat there, blankly, on the screen."

When I wrote "Joe's just sat there, blankly" I had inserted his word "blink", with its html bits, after his name, but it all disappeared from my posted text. All the rest of his stuff worked (as far as I can see) as he intended but nothing blinked. I suppose this is yet another example of what the most recent postings have emphasised.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 06:27 PM

I just got so used to Arial - after years of having no choice*** - and Arial Narrow allows LOTS of stuff to be squeezed legibly onto my screen - I now set it as my Windows Screen defaults too.

With the exception of Snuffy's post above, almost (John and other tech geeks will know just what I mean!) everything else at Mudcat (and on the web) is seen by me as Arial.

Which makes some of those 'authorities' on how to write (and format for clarity!) web pages in certain pedantically precise ways seem to be speaking mostly inconsistent garbage to me.

The WHOLE POINT of the original web designers was that MINIMUM specs on behalf of the 'poster' are needed - the 'reader' decides what happens anyway! (also needs less bandwidth too!) - Micro$oft and other technically ignorant w...... not withstanding... :-)


*** The Telstra Spec was for WRITTEN documents - including those to be posted or emailed, but I set up my PC THEN to use the Arial - as the differences between the 'Windows standard' desktop and the documents annoyed me...

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:38 PM

Actually html is largely a "spinoff" of SGML.

SGML = "Standard General Markup Language" if I remember it right.

SGML provided for "tags" that would indicate the usage of text and of things within it, so that format could be applied to the tag and everything with that tag would look the same, and so that searching "by tags" could make it easier to find and/or organize what's relevant.

Being an attempt to be logical, it naturally faded away, although it still remains in use in a few places, and the Standards Committee still tries ...

HTML, or hypertext markup language, continues to use the tags to indicate "classes" of "objects" but the emphasis has shifted away from classification by use in the direction of classification by intended appearance. It remains an abominable "language" for controlling "format" and "appearance" but people keep trying to push it in that direction. The "invention" of nonstandard tags "to provide cuteness" by browser makers, and their varying application, is one of the reasons that some browsers can see Scrolling Lines while others can see Blinks, a few can see either, and some can see none of the above.

Syle Sheets were an integral part of SGML, but the CSS sheets used on the web are another extension more for display, format, and action than for logical structure.

An XML "extension" of the HTML bastard child of SGML extends the kinds of tags even further toward permitting one to define things that have no logical significance and contribute nothing to "information" but provide movement and annoyance (and lots of malware).

One supposes it will all evolve into something helpful someday ...

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: Artful Codger
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:22 PM

I prefer chord changes embedded inline, since it often makes the difference whether a song will fit on a single page or not.

The move in HTML standards is away from explicit formatting directives (like bold and italic) and toward functional tagging (class="chord"). Defaults for explicit formatting are placed in separate style sheets, which can be overriden according to user preferences or the device or application used to handle the document. This gets back to the conceptual purity and flexibility of SGML.

But no one has yet explained how the average person is expected to adapt to this. Learning HTML tags has been challenging enough. Do they seriously expect the average user to understand style sheets, much less XML? What happens when all the tags become functional (and thus context-specific), and change from one site to another, one document type to another? HTML violated the SGML separation between function and format precisely in order to specify such things universally and simply.

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 06 - 09:16 AM

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxys
Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxys
Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: GUEST,Hairy Belly Font
Date: 15 Nov 06 - 04:04 PM

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: Howard Kaplan
Date: 15 Nov 06 - 04:17 PM

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Fonts in posting" rather than "Posting in fonts"?

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 02:17 AM

Well... you certainly can't have Fonts in the Title...

:-)

.. but you can have "Fonts"...

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 04:57 AM

As a sidenote to "Posting in Fonts" I just suffered an inadvertent switch to Internet Explorer 7. (I didn't notice that it was bundled with some other useful updates.)

A NEW FEATURE(?) in Tools|Internet Options allows the reader to set IE7 to "ignore page fonts" - i.e. to display everything in the fonts, and with colors, specified by the user in user's own browser, instead of displaying a font specified by the website.

I believe this setting could be made in older IE versions, but with the new v7 it's "in your face" when you go to the Fonts setting.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Posting in fonts.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 07:27 AM

The Church strongly disapproves of misusing Fonts...