If you DO NOT click on the *Reply* at the bottom of the post
but instead click on **More Options** then on THAT **Reply** link,
*that* option treats blockquoted whitespace properly
--instead of putting a ? in place of a .[1]
You don't end up with weird looking posts like:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/5c1c2d88f32523f6
(Of course, if you would trim out other people's sigs,
there would be a lot less to go wrong.)
Note: This is ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
when posting from Google Groups and blockquoting ASCII art.
.
.
[1] Google's left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing.
Thanks Jeff, that's a good tip. BUT, isn't HTML like itself
inappropriate in newsgroups anyhow?
Cheers,
James Arthur
>BUT, isn't HTML like
>itself inappropriate in newsgroups anyhow?
>
It's not the *posters* that are putting that in.
Again, it's about the way Google Groups formats ASCII posts
so they can be displayed on their *Web* site.
When the **in-plain-sight** Reply link is used
(which I advise **against** using until they fix it--if ever)
Google does a sloppy job of converting *back* from the only method
that allows instances of a poster's consecutive whitespaces
to be displayed in HTML (i.e. ).
Google gets it right
*IF* you use the Reply link that takes one additional click to get to.
Gotcha. Will do.
Cheers,
James