Magura's tips on wheel building
Jose Rizal
"Use spokes with a diameter of 2mm/1,8mm which you cross three times.
[snip]
Head-inside-spokes (arc-outside-spokes) have to be pulled, i.e. these
spokes point forward on the front wheel; on the back wheel these spokes
point forward on the rotor side and backwards on the drive side."
Is there any merit to this recommendation? The method described in TBW
results in the "head-inside" spokes on both sides of the wheel pointing
in the same direction (towards wheel forward rotation for the rear
wheel).
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> This is in Magura's disc brake manual:
# Use spokes with a diameter of 2mm/1,8mm which you cross three
# times... Head-inside-spokes (arc-outside-spokes) have to be pulled,
# i.e. these spokes point forward on the front wheel; on the back
# wheel these spokes point forward on the rotor side and backwards on
# the drive side.
> Is there any merit to this recommendation?
No, and this is another example of people in charge not being aware of
the technology with which they are working. Had they done an analysis
of forces involved, or read it in TBW ("the Bicycle Wheel"), they
would have known that braking torque doesn't present a significant
spoke load in comparison to the radial load of statically sitting on a
bicycle. They night also have noticed that the so called pushing
spokes in fact push, half the torque load being taken up by a light
tension increase and the other half by a tension decrease, so it
doesn't matter which way the spokes are oriented in the flange. That
is, all spokes of the wheel are involved in transmitting brake torque
from hub to rim (aka pedaling torque to the rear rim).
> The method described in TBW results in the "head-inside" spokes on
> both sides of the wheel pointing in the same direction (towards
> wheel forward rotation for the rear wheel).
That is also explained why one does that and mentions that the
orientation makes no real functional difference.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Zog The Undeniable
I prefer the rear wheel laced the other way round. With the way Magura
suggest, a derailed chain can get really tightly wedged between the
largest sprocket and the spokes.
Jose Rizal
How so? I would imagine that the chain will get wedged between the
largest sprocket and the hub flange if a chain derailment happens at
lowest gear regardless of the spokes' orientation. Or do you mean the
chain getting wedged between the spokes?
Zog The Undeniable
> How so? I would imagine that the chain will get wedged between the
> largest sprocket and the hub flange if a chain derailment happens at
> lowest gear regardless of the spokes' orientation. Or do you mean the
> chain getting wedged between the spokes?
>
If the outside spokes are "pulling" spokes the chain drags itself deeper
and can get really tightly jammed, because the spokes fall clockwise
towards the flange. If they're "trailing" spokes the chain is thrown
out again - although it can still leave some damage, if you see my post
from a couple of days ago. Of course, if you're freewheeling at the
time the opposite is true, but chains derail when you're changing gear
so, assuming derailleur gears, you'd be pedalling.
Of course, if your rear mech is perfectly adjusted, you should never
lose a chain in this way, but as there's no disadvantage to building a
wheel this way round, that's what I do.
Jose Rizal
Or you can just use a plastic spoke guard, but I'm told this has a very
low "cool" factor...
A Muzi
simply writing:
>>>How so? I would imagine that the chain will get wedged between the
>>>largest sprocket and the hub flange if a chain derailment happens at
>>>lowest gear regardless of the spokes' orientation. Or do you mean the
>>>chain getting wedged between the spokes?
> Zog The Undeniable in simple plain text wrote:
>>If the outside spokes are "pulling" spokes the chain drags itself deeper
>>and can get really tightly jammed, because the spokes fall clockwise
>>towards the flange. If they're "trailing" spokes the chain is thrown
>>out again - although it can still leave some damage, if you see my post
>>from a couple of days ago. Of course, if you're freewheeling at the
>>time the opposite is true, but chains derail when you're changing gear
>>so, assuming derailleur gears, you'd be pedalling.
>>
>>Of course, if your rear mech is perfectly adjusted, you should never
>>lose a chain in this way, but as there's no disadvantage to building a
>>wheel this way round, that's what I do.
Jose Rizal graphically created when he might have just written:
> Or you can just use a plastic spoke guard, but I'm told this has a very
> low "cool" factor...
Jose, I find your content interesting to read but the HTML
is distracting.
If you are using Netscape, choose [E]dit, Pr[E]ferences,
Mail&Newsgroups, SendFormat. Then enter rec.bicycles.tech
in the box entitled "PlainText Domains" and click the [OK] box.
The process is similar in other software and not at all
complex or difficult.
Thank you.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
S. Anderson
news:n05Jb.19683$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Or you can just use a plastic spoke guard, but I'm told this has a very
> low "cool" factor...
>
I've said it before, a $1 item that weighs 20 grams...works great and has
very little downside. Especially on MTB's.
Cheers,
Scott..
Carl Fogel
Dear Andrew,
Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts
appear in odd forms, but the format always
looks perfectly normal on my system.
Possibly I'm missing something interesting?
What do Jose's posts do on your screen that
looks odd? Is it just something like Peter
Chisholm's unusual quoting?
(Jose seems to be using Noworyta Newsreader
2.9, yet another program that I'm unfamiliar
with.)
Carl Fogel
Qui si parla Campagnolo
appear in odd forms, but the format always
Mine too.....
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Sheldon Brown
> Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts
> appear in odd forms, but the format always
> looks perfectly normal on my system.
>
> Possibly I'm missing something interesting?
Not all that interesting. He evidently has HTML mode enabled in his
newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface. Looks
fine to me, except that the font is a wee bit larger than the default
I've selected for Newsgroup display on my system.
Some folks with antedeluvian hardware or software will see a lot of
confusing HTML formatting in such messages, though they look fine on
modern systems.
Many, many terabytes of whining and complaint have filled Usenet over
the years on this topic.
> What do Jose's posts do on your screen that
> looks odd? Is it just something like Peter
> Chisholm's unusual quoting?
Peter uses America Online, and has never learned to select the "Use
Internet Style Quoting" option in his software, that's why his postings
look so funny and are hard to tell what's quoted and what's original.
Like all of his other fans, I long for the day when he decides to take
the training wheels off his computer and upgrade to a real ISP.
Sheldon "Used To Be On AOL Too" Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| I have suffered from being misunderstood |
| but I would have suffered a hell of a lot |
| more if I had been understood. |
| --Clarence Darrow |
+---------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Jose Rizal
> >>Jose Rizal displayed in a very modern format beyond
> simply writing:
> Jose Rizal graphically created when he might have just written:
> Jose, I find your content interesting to read but the HTML
> is distracting.
>
> If you are using Netscape, choose [E]dit, Pr[E]ferences,
> Mail&Newsgroups, SendFormat. Then enter rec.bicycles.tech
> in the box entitled "PlainText Domains" and click the [OK] box.
>
> The process is similar in other software and not at all
> complex or difficult.
I'm using Noworyta News Reader. It seems to have a default, fixed HTML
enable mode. I was unaware of sending such a troublesome format since
this particular newsreader also enables overriding any original formats
for reading.
S o r n i
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>
>> Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts
>> appear in odd forms, but the format always
>> looks perfectly normal on my system.
>>
>> Possibly I'm missing something interesting?
>
> Not all that interesting. He evidently has HTML mode enabled in his
> newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface. Looks
> fine to me, except that the font is a wee bit larger than the default
> I've selected for Newsgroup display on my system.
LARGER? (He said with raised eyebrows.) Jose's posts come out TINY on my
newsreader, in a bold/close-together font that's very difficult to read.
Bill "has decided to just accept it -- magnanimous, eh?" S.
(Pete Cresswell)
>Some folks with antedeluvian hardware or software will see a lot of
>confusing HTML formatting in such messages, though they look fine on
>modern systems.
Sometimes it's by preference.
Maybe I'm missing something security-wise, but my assumption has always been
that if my newsreader renders HTML, it's also at the beck and call of whatever
nasties are hidden in same.
--
PeteCresswell
David Kerber
A dedicated newsreader like Gravity cannot run ActiveX, JavaScript,
VBScript or other programming code in an HTML file. Only a browser with
security settings set below their max is vulnerable to that. Pure HTML
cannot do anything to your computer.
--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
Tom Sherman
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>
>> Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts
>> appear in odd forms, but the format always looks perfectly normal on
>> my system.
>>
>> Possibly I'm missing something interesting?
>
>
> Not all that interesting. He evidently has HTML mode enabled in his
> newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface. Looks
> fine to me, except that the font is a wee bit larger than the default
> I've selected for Newsgroup display on my system.
>
> Some folks with antedeluvian hardware or software will see a lot of
> confusing HTML formatting in such messages, though they look fine on
I set "View Message Body As" to "Plain Text" in Netscrape (sic)
Communicator 7.1, and all the messages appear in the same font without
any HTML gibberish.
Tom Sherman – Close to 41½ N, 90½ W
Carl Fogel
Dear Jose,
So far, there's clear agreement that your posts
show up:
a) full of <html coding>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
b) perfectly normal (2 votes)
Windows 98SE, IExplorer 6.0, Google Groups
AOL
c) a wee bit larger (nice size pun)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
d) TINY (another nice size pun)
Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
e) full of <html coding> by preference for security
Forte Agent 1.93/32.576
What I like about the formatting of your posts is
how nicely it illustrates the variety and confusion
at our end.
Notice how the rest of us assume that the problem
must lie in your system, not in any shortcoming
connected with our silicon pictures of perfection,
flawless operating systems, never-in-doubt newsreaders,
impeccable ISP's, or superior servers.
Remember, most people who suggest that you change
your settings, use a different program, switch to
another ISP, or buy a new kind of computer to suit
their convenience are usually appalled themselves
by the idea of changing even the slightest setting
in their own software, which luckily happens to
be darn near flawless.
They sometimes have suggestions about the right
bicycles, which are just as entertaining.
Carl Fogel
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>Dear Jose,
> b) perfectly normal (2 votes)
> Windows 98SE, IExplorer 6.0, Google Groups
> AOL
Before I killfiled him, I saw his posts in that format in Agent. I
suspect it has a setting that I've set on to filter HTML and show me
what's left.
> e) full of <html coding> by preference for security
> Forte Agent 1.93/32.576
>
>They sometimes have suggestions about the right
>bicycles, which are just as entertaining.
Jose, of course, is better than that. He has no suggestions, but is
full of imperative directions. For example, he is certain that drop
bars are not very good for anybody, and EVERYBODY MUST use flat bars
or some revolutionary design which has not yet been conceived. He's
also quite certain that it's impossible to move a mountain bike
around obstacles without depending solely on steering by turning the
handlebar.
>Carl Fogel
--
Rick Onanian
Benjamin Lewis
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts appear in odd forms, but the
> format always looks perfectly normal on my system.
>
> Possibly I'm missing something interesting?
I see them as normal too, even if I view them in "raw" format in Gnus.
Perhaps the
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
header is confusing some newsreaders or something.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899
stu
> No, and this is another example of people in charge not being aware of
> the technology with which they are working.
Well they work on brakes, so maybe you could forgive them(which l wouldnt)
for not knowing about wheels, but what about this page?
http://www.magura.de/english/frameset/default.htm?http://www.magura.de/english/hydraulik/hydraulik_wie.htm~Hauptframe
thats one link, you may have to copy and paste them together
>If, for example, the diameter of the master cylinder is
>half as big as the diameter of the slave cylinder, the
>force is quadrupled (however, the distance moved is
>reduced by 50%).
So not only dont they know about wheels, its seems they dont know about
hydraulics either.(unless l have missed something, if so would someone be
kind enough to point out what)
>The hydraulic principle has been proven millions of
>times. The mainstay of all hydraulic systems is the
>fact that liquids cannot be compressed.
That isnt a fact either(if we want to get picky)
Mark Janeba
> [Quoting, I guess, from Magura's web site?]
>>If, for example, the diameter of the master cylinder is
>>half as big as the diameter of the slave cylinder, the
>>force is quadrupled (however, the distance moved is
>>reduced by 50%).
>
> So not only dont they know about wheels, its seems they dont know about
> hydraulics either.(unless l have missed something, if so would someone be
> kind enough to point out what)
If you mean that it should read "the distance moved is reduced by 75%",
that's what I get also. (Four times the piston face area, one-fourth the
travel).
Mark Janeba
stu
I am glad that my maths is right and that someone could understand what I
was getting at. I did email them about 12 months ago, but as you can see
nothing has happened. I sure hope they do a better job on there brakes
B.C. Cletta
awhile back, late 80s/early 90s, i read an article in Buycycling on an
experiment done by Mavic race support. they built a bunch of wheels
w/ outside-pull & inside-pull. they reported that the outside-pull
were less troublesome.
i noted this awhile back and was immediately jobsted but i guess it
didn't take and it is a new year, so WTF? i agree that it should not
make a difference but since it costs nothing to implement, why not? i
did not rebuild my existing wheels to this but do so for new ones.
(if any of you packrats, er, collectors, want to vindicate me, it was
a sidebar in the back, maybe right after they gave up on the separate
technical newsletter nonsense.)
6500 shiftless miles in 03.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> No, and this is another example of people in charge not being aware
>> of the technology with which they are working.
> Well they work on brakes, so maybe you could forgive them(which I
> wouldn't) for not knowing about wheels, but what about this page?
> Thats one link, you may have to copy and paste them together
As long as I can just stretch the window, it makes one long line of it.
Besides, you could make a tinyurl of it like this:
# If, for example, the diameter of the master cylinder is half as big
# as the diameter of the slave cylinder, the force is quadrupled
# (however, the distance moved is reduced by 50%).
> So not only don't they know about wheels, its seems they don't know
> about hydraulics either.(unless l have missed something, if so would
> someone be kind enough to point out what).
They have had a chance to edit that site and review it. Even though
Mr. Jim Beam whiskey believes otherwise. Many in the bicycle business
are charlatans but know that they can pass of anything if they couch
it in technical jargon and tell it authoritatively. As yo0u see,
there are plenty of defenders of this method on this newsgroup.
# The hydraulic principle has been proven millions of times. The
# mainstay of all hydraulic systems is the fact that liquids cannot be
# compressed.
> That isn't a fact either(if we want to get picky).
However, the elasticity of the plumbing and entrapped gases in the
hydraulic fluid make that a lie. Apparently they don't understand the
brakes in their cars either, a place where these things are told to
you by your garage at inspection time. Brake fluid is hygroscopic as
well.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Benjamin Weiner
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > Not all that interesting. He evidently has HTML mode enabled in his
> > newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface. Looks
> > fine to me, except that the font is a wee bit larger than the default
> > I've selected for Newsgroup display on my system.
> >
> > Some folks with antedeluvian hardware or software will see a lot of
> > confusing HTML formatting in such messages, though they look fine on
> > modern systems....
> I set "View Message Body As" to "Plain Text" in Netscrape (sic)
> Communicator 7.1, and all the messages appear in the same font without
> any HTML gibberish.
Jose's posts do not contain any HTML formatting. I see them as plain
text in my "antediluvian" newsreader. I suspect the problem lies
either in his specification of an odd charset (iso-8859-2 or something
like that), or his perverse choice of an invalid email address,
which is <_@_._>.
That's <pre> <_@_._> </pre>, if it didn't come out for those of you
reading usenet in a brain damaged HTML rendering newsreader.
Newsreaders shouldn't be interpreting stuff in Jose's From line as
HTML commands, and I don't know what if anything that could do
as an HTML command, but you never know.
> Tom Sherman – Close to 41½ N, 90½ W
As long as we're on this subject, Tom, there are extended ascii
characters in your signature line, seemingly 226 (a hyphen?? why
not use the usual hyphen?) and 275, a 1/2. That's nice for
iso charsets, but they are interpreted as control characters by
quite a few terminal programs. Whenever I read one of your posts
in an xterm, it screws up the display for subsequent posts.
One might say that this just means many terminal programs aren't
eight-bit clean, but Usenet was not designed to be an eight-bit
medium, so it's better to play nice with readers that aren't
eight-bit clean.
Carl Fogel
> Tom Sherman <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
> > Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> > > Not all that interesting. He evidently has HTML mode enabled in his
> > > newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface. Looks
> > > fine to me, except that the font is a wee bit larger than the default
> > > I've selected for Newsgroup display on my system.
> > >
> > > Some folks with antedeluvian hardware or software will see a lot of
> > > confusing HTML formatting in such messages, though they look fine on
> > > modern systems....
>
> > I set "View Message Body As" to "Plain Text" in Netscrape (sic)
> > Communicator 7.1, and all the messages appear in the same font without
> > any HTML gibberish.
>
> Jose's posts do not contain any HTML formatting. I see them as plain
> text in my "antediluvian" newsreader. I suspect the problem lies
> either in his specification of an odd charset (iso-8859-2 or something
> like that), or his perverse choice of an invalid email address,
> which is <_@_._>.
>
> That's <pre> <_@_._> </pre>, if it didn't come out for those of you
> reading usenet in a brain damaged HTML rendering newsreader.
> Newsreaders shouldn't be interpreting stuff in Jose's From line as
> HTML commands, and I don't know what if anything that could do
> as an HTML command, but you never know.
>
>
> As long as we're on this subject, Tom, there are extended ascii
> characters in your signature line, seemingly 226 (a hyphen?? why
> not use the usual hyphen?) and 275, a 1/2. That's nice for
> iso charsets, but they are interpreted as control characters by
> quite a few terminal programs. Whenever I read one of your posts
> in an xterm, it screws up the display for subsequent posts.
> One might say that this just means many terminal programs aren't
> eight-bit clean, but Usenet was not designed to be an eight-bit
> medium, so it's better to play nice with readers that aren't
> eight-bit clean.
Dear Benjamin,
Terminal programs . . .
I scorn the obvious morbid pun.
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman
> As long as we're on this subject, Tom, there are extended ascii
> characters in your signature line, seemingly 226 (a hyphen?? why
> not use the usual hyphen?)...
That extended character set hyphen occurred inadvertently, as I use
micro$oft Weird (sic) to spell check my posts before sending. I assume
that one of the auto-correct features changed the normal hyphen into the
horizontally longer extended character set hyphen.
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
David L. Johnson
I never have understood this. Why the hell do we need another hyphen?
For that matter, another quote sign? For the purposes of e-mail, to my
mind one hyphen is the same as another, and " works fine as a quote. Why
complicate things unnecessarily? Oh, that's right, it's so it will only
display correctly on MS software.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion
_`\(,_ | unequaled by any people in the Nineteenth Century. We are not
(_)/ (_) | to be curbed now. --Henry Cabot Lodge, 1895
Benjamin Weiner
> That extended character set hyphen occurred inadvertently, as I use
> micro$oft Weird (sic) to spell check my posts before sending. I assume
> that one of the auto-correct features changed the normal hyphen into the
> horizontally longer extended character set hyphen.
Egad. Thanks for the explanation, Tom. Further proof that
MS Word is the devil's work.
David L. Johnson <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> I never have understood this. Why the hell do we need another hyphen?
> For that matter, another quote sign? For the purposes of e-mail, to my
> mind one hyphen is the same as another, and " works fine as a quote. Why
> complicate things unnecessarily? Oh, that's right, it's so it will only
> display correctly on MS software.
Well, I can understand why one might want such things. You're a
mathematician and like me probably use TeX/LaTeX, in which "--" gets
you a long dash and "``" a real open quote. Both of these are nice
for printed matter, though gratuitous for e-mail. I have no objection
if Word gives its users a way of scratching these marks on their
prison walls (oops, no insult intended to the users, just the software),
though it would be nice if they could use standard ISO character sets.
What is truly obnoxious is the "auto-correct" feature that changes
things for the user's supposed own good. And of course, in MS fashion,
it is turned on by default.
Jose Rizal
>
> Before I killfiled him, I saw his posts in that format in Agent. I
> suspect it has a setting that I've set on to filter HTML and show me
> what's left.
>
> Jose, of course, is better than that. He has no suggestions, but is
> full of imperative directions. For example, he is certain that drop
> bars are not very good for anybody, and EVERYBODY MUST use flat bars
> or some revolutionary design which has not yet been conceived.
CLose your mouth and stop the drooling, Rick. Exaggerations don't
improve your position.
> He's
> also quite certain that it's impossible to move a mountain bike
> around obstacles without depending solely on steering by turning the
> handlebar.
No, I actually believe in bunny hops, Rick, unlike you who would rather
re-define it in terms of your fantastically heroic superhuman feats.
Come now, the exchange we had is finished. You've shown your lack of
knowledge, made fantastically heroic claims of superhuman feats, and
been shown to have nothing but hot air in your posts. Move on with your
life.... it's a bit low to try to placate your wounded ego by hijacking
another's post.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>That extended character set hyphen occurred inadvertently, as I use
>>micro$oft Weird (sic) to spell check my posts before sending. I assume
>>that one of the auto-correct features changed the normal hyphen into the
>>horizontally longer extended character set hyphen.
I have been using micro$oft Weird (sic) because it came bundled with my
computer and it was what was used both by my university in graduate
school and by my current workplace. As we know, "Weird" files often do
not translate well.
> Egad. Thanks for the explanation, Tom. Further proof that
> MS Word is the devil's work.
>
> ... What is truly obnoxious is the "auto-correct" feature that changes
> things for the user's supposed own good. And of course, in MS fashion,
> it is turned on by default.
I once had an "auto-correct" feature turn "New LDS Church" into "New LSD
Church". Fortunately, I caught the error before the document was sent to
the client, who might not have found it to be amusing.
David Damerell
>Jose Rizal displayed in a very modern format beyond simply writing:
>>low "cool" factor...
>Jose, I find your content interesting to read but the HTML
>is distracting.
I repeat myself;
THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
David Damerell
>Carl Fogel wrote:
>>Others have remarked that Jose Rizal's posts appear in odd forms,
>newsgroup software, causing it to specify a specific typeface.
No, he doesn't. My "antediluvian" newsreader doesn't fool me; your
"modern" one fools you.
[Mine also has the feature that it always displays everything to me in the
font, size and colour of my choosing, something it did for over a decade
before any "modern" newsreaders-in-Web-browsers felt this might be a good
plan, because it just runs in a terminal window as God intended.]
A Muzi
> THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
Yes that's been pointed out to me before repeatedly.
Unfortunately my error gets quoted through the thread so
even though I wrote it once you see it over and over.
His are the only posts which display in a different font,
more than twice the font size of others here and in bold on
my system.
I leapt to conclusions, I was wrong, I've been properly
chastized and I apologize.
So what is the effect and why only his?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
S o r n i
> David Damerell wrote:
>> THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
>
> Yes that's been pointed out to me before repeatedly.
>
> Unfortunately my error gets quoted through the thread so
> even though I wrote it once you see it over and over.
>
> His are the only posts which display in a different font,
> more than twice the font size of others here and in bold on
> my system.
Aaacck! ANOTHER one who sees Jose's posts */bigger/* than normal! They
show up tiny on my system...
Bill "cue Twilight Zone theme" S.
David Reuteler
: Aaacck! ANOTHER one who sees Jose's posts */bigger/* than normal! They
: show up tiny on my system...
:
: Bill "cue Twilight Zone theme" S.
i'd wager it's because the Content-Type is set funky in his header:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
there a few other people who have it set as 8859-1 (B.C. Cletta sp?) and i
would expect they might show up weird, too. but he was the only 8859-2
that i saw. this would probably cause some readers to try and render
it differently due to anticipated special characters not in the normal
font (for instance).
ahh, but under UNIX tin handles it just fine, thanks.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
I have inserted;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
into the headers of this post. If it appears similar afflicted, then David
Reutler's theory is correct.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
S o r n i
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
>> So what is the effect and why only his?
>
> I have inserted;
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> into the headers of this post. If it appears similar afflicted, then
> David Reutler's theory is correct.
Ding ding ding! We have a (very small type) winner!
Bill "now cut that out :) " S.
David Damerell
If that information is correct for Jose's posts, and I see no indication
that it is not, it is not for him to cut it out; people with crappy -
sorry, "modern" - newsreaders need to configure them correctly, or change
newsreader (especially wise if you use OE, of course).
I notice that the affected readers are using either Web browser derived
newsreaders, or OE (which is tightly interwoved with Internet Explorer). I
would guess that where the Web browser allows you to manipulate fonts
separately for different alphabets and geographical regions - as, for
instance, current Mozillas do - then setting the font size for some region
like "Eastern Europe" will improve matters.
Jose Rizal
But the post appeared perfectly normal on my newsreader. It's not me,
it's you....
A Muzi
>>>THERE IS NO HTML IN JOSE RIZAL'S POSTS.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>So what is the effect and why only his?
David Damerell wrote:
> I have inserted;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> into the headers of this post. If it appears similar afflicted, then David
> Reutler's theory is correct.
Then you and David are correct. This displays to me overly
large and bold and in a different font than the plain text I
otherwise see here. (I select "plain text", but that's
overridden by that snippet.)
Mystery solved, apparently. Thank you .
If it isn't asking too much, why does that appear only in
Jose's posts and none other?
David Reuteler
: If it isn't asking too much, why does that appear only in
he's using what seems to me** a fairly rare news reader:
User-Agent: Noworyta News Reader/2.9
maybe it's configured oddly or default strangely? if i could run that
program i'd have a look and see why it defaults (or is configured?) to
use such an odd charset.
** not that i'd know what is rare for windows having never actually used it.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
A Muzi
> : If it isn't asking too much, why does that appear only in
> : Jose's posts and none other?
David Reuteler wrote:
> he's using what seems to me** a fairly rare news reader:
> User-Agent: Noworyta News Reader/2.9
> http://nnr.freeservers.com/
> maybe it's configured oddly or default strangely? if i could run that
> program i'd have a look and see why it defaults (or is configured?) to
> use such an odd charset.
> ** not that i'd know what is rare for windows having never actually used it.
Sorry to belabor this, but shouldn't we all see it the same
way, then?
Why are Sorni and I the only ones? He sees it very small
and I see it very large. And Jose Rizal says his posts
appear as all the others on his machine.
If it is Rizal's settings, why doesn't anyone else get an
unusual display?
David Reuteler
: Sorry to belabor this, but shouldn't we all see it the same
: way, then?
no. it's up to the newsreader to decide how to react to the different
character set. yours chose to switch fonts (possibly to one that is able
to display special characters) while another newsreader may be using a
font that is already 8-bit capable and not need to switch. what size the
font would be is also up to the newsreader.
in my case all the messages are the same and 8-bit special characters show
up as "Fram?" (the ?) or the octal equivalent Frame\172 (or whatever) of
the character but my newsreader (tin under solaris) doesn't try and switch
fonts to display it.
: If it is Rizal's settings, why doesn't anyone else get an
: unusual display?
their readers just aren't trying as hard as yours.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
David Damerell
>Sorry to belabor this, but shouldn't we all see it the same
>way, then?
>Why are Sorni and I the only ones?
As explained elsewhere in the thread, it will ordinarily only afflict
people using newsreaders derived from Web browsers (OE is closely
intermingled with Internet Explorer, and AIR you use Mozilla).
Even then, some such people will have settings for Eastern European text
that are similar to those for normal text.
I suggest again that you try manipulating those settings.
[Manifestly, for instance, any "antiquated" CLI newsreader will display
text in only one font, that of the terminal window. I cannot tell you how
upset I am not to have a "modern" reader that does strange and
unpredictable things like this.]
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?