Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

For "mpm" and other Google Groupers: Better (whitespace) posting technique (was: AT89C52 counterfeits)

33 views
Skip to first unread message

JeffM

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 7:19:34 PM6/10/08
to
>Eeyore wrote:
>>[...]and related �family chips advertised[...]
>>
In 80509c92-cb84-4b0a...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
mpm wrote:
>[...]That explains it.[...]

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.

James Arthur

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 11:45:12 AM6/11/08
to

Thanks Jeff, that's a good tip. BUT, isn't HTML like   itself
inappropriate in newsgroups anyhow?

Cheers,
James Arthur

JeffM

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 2:35:11 PM6/11/08
to
>JeffM wrote:
>>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.
>>
James Arthur wrote:
>Thanks Jeff, that's a good tip.
>
<Deep theatrical bow> 8-)

>BUT, isn't HTML like &nbsp;
>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. &nbsp;).

Google gets it right
*IF* you use the Reply link that takes one additional click to get to.

James Arthur

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 4:00:22 PM6/11/08
to

Gotcha. Will do.

Cheers,
James

0 new messages