By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
458,127 Members | 1,309 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 458,127 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Default Font

P: n/a
Hello,

I am trying to figure out how to change the default font-family and
font-size. I tried adding this to the BODY section, but it didn't work. I
tried to the P section, but they are not enclosed in <P> tags. They are just
basic fonts.

Can anyone help? Thanks!
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
54 Replies


P: n/a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:10:16 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to change the default font-family and
font-size. I tried adding this to the BODY section,
An URL might be helpful next time, then it is
easier to see where you are going wrong.
...but it didn't work.
Lazy was it? Did you try flogging it? ;-)
..I
tried to the P section, but they are not enclosed in <P> tags. They are just
basic fonts.


Try..

<html>
<head>
<title>Font</title>
<style type='text/css'>
body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Font Test</h1>
<p>This should display as either Arial or a generic Sans-Serif font
at the user's preferred size.
</body>
</html>

HTH

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?
"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:xf***************************@40tude.net...
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:10:16 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to change the default font-family and
font-size. I tried adding this to the BODY section,


An URL might be helpful next time, then it is
easier to see where you are going wrong.
...but it didn't work.


Lazy was it? Did you try flogging it? ;-)
..I
tried to the P section, but they are not enclosed in <P> tags. They are just basic fonts.


Try..

<html>
<head>
<title>Font</title>
<style type='text/css'>
body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Font Test</h1>
<p>This should display as either Arial or a generic Sans-Serif font
at the user's preferred size.
</body>
</html>

HTH

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
It is considered back practice to attempt to force a particular font size on
the end user. What happens if the end user is visually impaired and tries to
set View->Text Size->Larger? The whole purpose of HTML is NOT to enforce
your preferences on the end user.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Brett Baisley" <ba*****@hotmail.com.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Zs**********************@twister01.bloor.is.n et.cable.rogers.com...
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?
"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:xf***************************@40tude.net...
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:10:16 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to change the default font-family and
font-size. I tried adding this to the BODY section,
An URL might be helpful next time, then it is
easier to see where you are going wrong.
...but it didn't work.


Lazy was it? Did you try flogging it? ;-)
..I
tried to the P section, but they are not enclosed in <P> tags. They
are just basic fonts.


Try..

<html>
<head>
<title>Font</title>
<style type='text/css'>
body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Font Test</h1>
<p>This should display as either Arial or a generic Sans-Serif font
at the user's preferred size.
</body>
</html>

HTH

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology


Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:39:05 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:

Please do not top-post Brett,
I find it most confusing..
<http://www.physci.org/codes/javafaq.jsp#netiquette>
See further comments, in-line..
"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:10:16 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to change the default font-family and
font-size.
... <head> ... body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
}
</style>
</head>
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px.
I like my font sizes the way they are Brett,
why do you want to go messing with them?

...There is a common discussion on these groups about
'Font Size', and the sagest and most reliable advice
seems to be. 'Let the user decide'.
..I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Force? You want to force 10px down the
monitor of the visitors who invite your
web-page into their PC's?

What if that person has poor vision, and
prefers their fonts at 'double size', what if
they have a 1600x1200 monitor.. your 10px font
will be miniscule and unreadable.

The user might (if they are feeling kindly) go
into their browser settings, tell the UA to completely
ignore your styles, fonts, sizes and go on with
browsing your site, they may OTOH, hit the
Back button and kick your site the heck out
their browser (and lives).

The trick you seek is hidden within the
font-size element above, but it might pay
to read through both the group and the
recently revived FAQ to get some ideas about
where you might change your thinking to suit
both the visitor and the future.

Fixed font sizes, like pop-ups, are going the
way of the dinosaurs - the user will soon have
ultimate control over the sites they allow on
their PC's. If *your* layout/site does not work
at the size the user wants, they will simply
consider it 'broken'.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
It is considered back practice to attempt to force a particular font size on
the end user. What happens if the end user is visually impaired and tries to
set View->Text Size->Larger? The whole purpose of HTML is NOT to enforce
your preferences on the end user.


It is considered bad practice to top posting also! See what happened
with the rest of the content (quotes of earlier posts) that you left
under your reply, when I reply to yours!

--
/Arne
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Brett Baisley wrote:
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors? At least use em or
percent insted of px (or pt) so also IE users can change to larger size
if they need it, before they are able to read the content on your pages.

--
/Arne

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Pn*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Brett Baisley wrote:
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors? At least use em or
percent insted of px (or pt) so also IE users can change to larger size
if they need it, before they are able to read the content on your pages.

--
/Arne


Ok, I was going to hardcode my H1, H2, H3, etc because I don't like the
default jumps in between them. Like H1 is too big for what I want, and H2 is
just a bit too small. I am using CSS to modify them, but I'll just set the
percentages to acheive the style I am looking for. Is that a better way then
setting the size? Or am I still wrong?
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a

"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Pn*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Brett Baisley wrote:
Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors? At least use em or
percent insted of px (or pt) so also IE users can change to larger size
if they need it, before they are able to read the content on your pages.

--
/Arne

And sorry for top posting. I perfer it that way, as then the most recent
reply is at the top. I didn't realize most people don't. I don't use
newsgroups enough to know these things.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Brett Baisley wrote:
"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Pn*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Brett Baisley wrote:

Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors? At least use em or
percent insted of px (or pt) so also IE users can change to larger size
if they need it, before they are able to read the content on your pages.

--
/Arne

Ok, I was going to hardcode my H1, H2, H3, etc because I don't like the
default jumps in between them. Like H1 is too big for what I want, and H2 is
just a bit too small. I am using CSS to modify them, but I'll just set the
percentages to acheive the style I am looking for. Is that a better way then
setting the size? Or am I still wrong?


If you have to set a particular size for the fonts, then you are on the
right way with percentages. Then all visitors can change the size if
they need (or like to) do so.

Good also to use CSS, and even better if you use an external CSS-file.
Then you can ease change the settings for all your pages (for exemple
the font sizes) if you want to do so later on.

--
/Arne

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:47:36 GMT, Brett Baisley wrote:
And sorry for top posting. I perfer it that way, as then the most recent
reply is at the top. I didn't realize most people don't.
On most of the groups I post, people prefer
in-line posting with trimming. That is where
you trim everything you are not replying to,
then put your comment directly after.

OTOH, some groups are different, it is best to
have a read through a group for a few days at
least before you post. It gives you an idea of
the style preferred in the group, and you may well
find your answers in the posts you read.
..I don't use
newsgroups enough to know these things.


There are a variety of handy resources you can
look out for, fortunately J.R.N. recently collected
a lot of them together into the, what is it, oh yeah..
"Welcome to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets,
this is our newsgroup FAQ v2.00 "
<http://groups.google.com/groups?th=420ed4918ccc4996>

That is the short link, but follow the 'frames'
link to get the most up to date version, or..
<http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html>

HTH

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:16:36 GMT, Andrew Thompson wrote:
There are a variety of handy resources you can
look out for, fortunately J.R.N.
J.R.N.?? Try..
"Jan Roland Eriksson"

(My apologies, Jan)
...recently collected
a lot of them together into the, what is it, oh yeah..
"Welcome to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets,
this is our newsgroup FAQ v2.00 "


--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Brett Baisley wrote:
"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Pn*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Brett Baisley wrote:

Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I would
like to make the font size 10px. I tried font-size: 10px but it doesn't
change. Is there a way to force the change?


Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors? At least use em or
percent insted of px (or pt) so also IE users can change to larger size
if they need it, before they are able to read the content on your pages.

--
/Arne


And sorry for top posting. I perfer it that way, as then the most recent
reply is at the top. I didn't realize most people don't. I don't use
newsgroups enough to know these things.


We all learn new things every day :-)
In most newsgroups bottom posting is the standard. In groups with a lot
of newbees and kids there may not be any standard at all. But everything
will be a mess when some people bottom post and other top post, in the
same thread.

For you it may be easier to top post if it's posts in threads you
started your self. But for everybody else it's better with bottom
posting in news. Especialy if you "jump in" and don't download all post
in that particular thread. Then you have no clue what the top poster is
talking about. :-)

If you are new to a thread, you will see that its easier to read the
original post first and first reply after that, so you can understand
the whole discussion when you reach the last (in the bottom and last in
time) post that normaly also is a reply to earlier posts.

You may top post in a communication with one single person, if both
parts agree to do so. That's possible since you and the other person
mostly know what you are replying to, and you both know what you are
talking about, without reading the quotes in the bottom of all mails.
I do it my self in mail mostly :-)

--
/Arne

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:yk*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Tony Marston wrote:
It is considered back practice to attempt to force a particular font size on the end user. What happens if the end user is visually impaired and tries to set View->Text Size->Larger? The whole purpose of HTML is NOT to enforce
your preferences on the end user.


It is considered bad practice to top posting also! See what happened
with the rest of the content (quotes of earlier posts) that you left
under your reply, when I reply to yours!

--
/Arne

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
/Tony Marston/:
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


Hahahah - you've made my day, dude.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:32:25 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
Who says I can't post at the top?


You are the first person to bring the concept
of can or can't into this thread. Do as you
wish and 'talk to the tumbleweeds', AFAIAC..

*plonk*

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


You do have a "Page Down" button on your keyboard, don't you :-)

Do you take your bad habits with you (and act after them) when you visit
other people as a guest? Living in the UK are you? Do you still drive on
the left side of the road, if you go by car to countries where everybody
else is driving on the right(!) side?

Besides, you don't have a newsreader. Just an OE, what ever crap that is :-)

--
/Arne
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Brett Baisley" <ba*****@hotmail.com.REMOVETHIS> wrote in
news:ds**********************@twister01.bloor.is.n et.cable.rogers.com:
> Ok, that seems to work ok by changing the font to arial, but now I
> would like to make the font size 10px.
Why force a unreadable font size to your visitors?
Ok, I was going to hardcode my H1, H2, H3, etc because I don't like
the default jumps in between them. Like H1 is too big for what I want,
and H2 is just a bit too small. I am using CSS to modify them, but
I'll just set the percentages to acheive the style I am looking for.


Yes, use CSS. You might want to take a look at the CCC Zen Garden:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
and at:
http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/replace_text/

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:32:25 +0100, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the
world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.

If you top-post, expect to be ignored here.
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:32:25 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Who says I can't post at the top?
Well, you /can/ but we, the regular usenauts of this NG, have agreed
that it's not considered correct and polite to do so here.
I never agreed to any such rules when I started to use
newsgroups.
But we have, for this NG in particular...

<http://www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.txt>

....have a look at Q&A entry no 7.
Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by default and as it's
made my Microsoft...
Yea; A badly configured "MS Outlook Express" is a solid diagnosis of
your "illness".
...then it must be the correct way.


Not by any definition of the word "correct".

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
I did not agree to those rules before I started posting to this newsgroup,
and I sure as hell don't agree with them now. Provided that my postings are
on topic and do not contain profanities you should have nothing to complain
about.

If you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <re*@css.nu> wrote in message
news:oq********************************@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:32:25 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Who says I can't post at the top?


Well, you /can/ but we, the regular usenauts of this NG, have agreed
that it's not considered correct and polite to do so here.
I never agreed to any such rules when I started to use
newsgroups.


But we have, for this NG in particular...

<http://www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.txt>

...have a look at Q&A entry no 7.
Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by default and as it's
made my Microsoft...


Yea; A badly configured "MS Outlook Express" is a solid diagnosis of
your "illness".
...then it must be the correct way.


Not by any definition of the word "correct".

--
Rex

Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
I also have nipples, but I can't find any use for them.

I shall carry on top posting just to annoy people like you.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Jn*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Tony Marston wrote:
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world (NOT!), then it must be the correct way.

You do have a "Page Down" button on your keyboard, don't you :-)

Do you take your bad habits with you (and act after them) when you visit
other people as a guest? Living in the UK are you? Do you still drive on
the left side of the road, if you go by car to countries where everybody
else is driving on the right(!) side?

Besides, you don't have a newsreader. Just an OE, what ever crap that is

:-)
--
/Arne

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf******************@news.demon.co.uk:
I shall carry on top posting just to annoy people like you.


You seem intent on convincing people that you are a twit,
which won't be to your advantage should you ever find
that you would like to make a posting to this group
where you ask for help with a problem.

As I don't use Outlook Express, I haven't tried it,
but perhaps you should take a look at OE-QuoteFix
if you insist on continuing to use OE:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
I also have nipples, but I can't find any use for them.

I shall carry on top posting just to annoy people like you.


*Plonk*

--
Arne
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
/Tony Marston/:
I did not agree to those rules before I started posting to this newsgroup,
and I sure as hell don't agree with them now. Provided that my postings are
on topic and do not contain profanities you should have nothing to complain
about.
I complain about the written format, the "top-posting" in particular.
If you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.


It is no problem - time to define one more "killfile" filter (lately
I'm using such pretty often).

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
A troll named Tony Marston wrote:
I shall carry on top posting just to annoy people like you.

Dave Patton wrote: You seem intent on convincing people that you are a twit,


Uh, fellow ciwa* usenauts, has your olfactory senses left you? Can you
not smell an *obvious* troll?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 23:30:58 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I did not agree to those rules before I started
posting to this newsgroup...
Yes I do understand that you did not bother to read our newsgroup FAQ
before you jumped in here.
...and I sure as hell don't agree with them now.
Your problem, not ours.
If you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.


Hmm; you seem to be very contradictory in your Internet appearance...

<quote>
Welcome to Tony's Web Site.
It may not be much but it's all I have,
so please treat it gently.
</quote>

....you are asking us for a gentle treatment of your web site but can not
find it in your heart to return the courtesy to us here in this NG?

....here's another...

<quote>
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly
reason, But for those who can, rules become nothing more
than guidelines, And live their lives governed not by rules
but by reason.
- James McGuigan
</quote>

....and as I have already said, we have _reason_ to recommend a specific
posting method, based on the traditional "standard" for the "big-8"
hierarchy, here in this NG.

Allow me to list at least one of those reasons...

Usenet discussions gets publicly archived; any one who wants to
backtrack an archived thread should be able to do so without being
forced to jump up and down at random in the mass of text s/he tries to
follow.

"Top posting" is a thread destructor in that sense.

Several other examples, related to e.g. unstable news feed around the
world, loss of specific thread entries etc. could be given as other
reasons to adopt a truly threaded posting style, but I leave it to you
with your "humongous" computer background to figure out the impact of
those reasons.

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
I prefer top posting for a simple reason. In my newsreader I have the view
set to "group messages by conversation", and I prefer to view the contents
of messages in my preview pane. This means that when I click on a message I
want to see *that* message and not an echo of the previous message. I do not
want to have to waste my time in scrolling down through the previous message
to see the current contribution.

That appears to be more user friendly than bottom posting. I cannot see any
benefits in bottom posting therefore I consider that rule to be irrelevant.
The quote by James McGuigan indicates that you follow the rule simply
because it is there, but you lack the ability to reason why it is there.

I, on the other hand, am an awkward SOB who has the audacity to question
certain rules, and if they cannot be justified then I ignore them.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <re*@css.nu> wrote in message
news:tf********************************@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 23:30:58 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I did not agree to those rules before I started
posting to this newsgroup...


Yes I do understand that you did not bother to read our newsgroup FAQ
before you jumped in here.
...and I sure as hell don't agree with them now.


Your problem, not ours.
If you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.


Hmm; you seem to be very contradictory in your Internet appearance...

<quote>
Welcome to Tony's Web Site.
It may not be much but it's all I have,
so please treat it gently.
</quote>

...you are asking us for a gentle treatment of your web site but can not
find it in your heart to return the courtesy to us here in this NG?

...here's another...

<quote>
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly
reason, But for those who can, rules become nothing more
than guidelines, And live their lives governed not by rules
but by reason.
- James McGuigan
</quote>

...and as I have already said, we have _reason_ to recommend a specific
posting method, based on the traditional "standard" for the "big-8"
hierarchy, here in this NG.

Allow me to list at least one of those reasons...

Usenet discussions gets publicly archived; any one who wants to
backtrack an archived thread should be able to do so without being
forced to jump up and down at random in the mass of text s/he tries to
follow.

"Top posting" is a thread destructor in that sense.

Several other examples, related to e.g. unstable news feed around the
world, loss of specific thread entries etc. could be given as other
reasons to adopt a truly threaded posting style, but I leave it to you
with your "humongous" computer background to figure out the impact of
those reasons.

--
Rex

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:16:54 +0100, "Tony Marston"
<to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I prefer top posting for a simple reason... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^^^^^^
You misspelled "egoistic".
...I do not want to have to waste my time in scrolling down
through the previous message to see the current contribution.
And this statement indicates clearly that you don't understand what the
#7 FAQ entry is all about.
...I, on the other hand, am an awkward SOB...


Agreed; ^K

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote in
<cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules
when I started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top
posting by default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest
corporation in the world (NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


FWIT, OE is much enhanced by OE QuoteFix - loads of features:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
Does this make you a plonker?

"Arne" <ar**@luras.nu> wrote in message
news:Ah*********************@newsc.telia.net...
Tony Marston wrote:
I also have nipples, but I can't find any use for them.

I shall carry on top posting just to annoy people like you.


*Plonk*

--
Arne

Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk:
I prefer top posting for a simple reason. In my newsreader I have the
view set to "group messages by conversation", and I prefer to view the
contents of messages in my preview pane. This means that when I click
on a message I want to see *that* message and not an echo of the
previous message. I do not want to have to waste my time in scrolling
down through the previous message to see the current contribution.
But the thing is, you use that for viewing OTHER people's messages, not
your own, so therefore, top-posting your own messages doesn't improve
your usenet experience. Unless you like admiring your own writing.
That appears to be more user friendly than bottom posting. I cannot
see any benefits in bottom posting therefore I consider that rule to
be irrelevant.


Well, for starters, sensible conversation flow.
--
In a room with thirty-seven people, never have everybody shake each
other's hand.
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
JRS: In article <cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, dated Sat, 7
Aug 2004 20:32:25, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.styleshee
ts, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> posted :
Bottom posting corrected.

Who says I can't post at the top?
Your ISP, in the guidance initially supplied and in their current
documentation, has told you that you should not do so.

In addition, it has told you to trim the amount that you quote to a
reasonable minimum, and (except when they are being discussed) never to
quote signatures.

I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups. Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


YWII.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to) various
newsgroups for several years where top posting was the accepted standard
that I came across the notion that bottom posting was the "proper way". It
struck me as ridiculous then and it seems just as ridiculous now. I shall
continue top posting until hell freezes over, and if you don't like it I
suggest you take it up with Microsoft. After all, they own the internet (or
think they do).

This conversation is getting boring, so I will stop here.

--
Tony (bottom posting is for anal retentives) Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
"Sam Hughes" <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@130.133.1.4...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk:
I prefer top posting for a simple reason. In my newsreader I have the
view set to "group messages by conversation", and I prefer to view the
contents of messages in my preview pane. This means that when I click
on a message I want to see *that* message and not an echo of the
previous message. I do not want to have to waste my time in scrolling
down through the previous message to see the current contribution.


But the thing is, you use that for viewing OTHER people's messages, not
your own, so therefore, top-posting your own messages doesn't improve
your usenet experience. Unless you like admiring your own writing.
That appears to be more user friendly than bottom posting. I cannot
see any benefits in bottom posting therefore I consider that rule to
be irrelevant.


Well, for starters, sensible conversation flow.
--
In a room with thirty-seven people, never have everybody shake each
other's hand.

Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk:
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to)
various newsgroups for several years where top posting was the
accepted standard that I came across the notion that bottom posting
was the "proper way". It struck me as ridiculous then and it seems
just as ridiculous now. I shall continue top posting until hell
freezes over


To quote you:
http://www.marston-home.demon.co.uk/...me(right).html
"I enjoy being able to produce high-quality software, and I like being
able to share my knowledge and experience with others, and also to
learn from the experiences of others. My motivation is the pursuit of
technical excellence and the satisfaction of a job well done."

Your attitude demonstrated in your recent postings, as well as
your apparent inflexibility, and unwillingness to use available
tools such as OE-QuoteFix(or a real newsreader program) would
suggest that the above quote was written in the past, and no
longer holds true.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I
started to use newsgroups.
Although, I should at least thank you for sending your posts in plain
text, instead of the default invalid MSHTML crap it usually sends;
however, it is considered bad practise to top post. It's better to post
inline, below each section, so that others can tell exactly which
section you are replying to. Try searching for top posting in google,
or searching through the usenet faqs for more information on why.
Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world
(NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


I wouldn't even pretend to call MS the greatest corporation in the world
when it comes to products designed for use on the net. Virus Express,
as I like to call it, doesn't seem to get very much right at all. It's
insecure, and I found it difficult to configure properly, so I just gave
up on it.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while others
simply do not care.

If I am responding to individual points in a large post then I will usually
put them inline. That is for readability, not because of any rules.

As I have said before, my preference is for top posting because when I click
on a message the first thing I want to see is the current text and not an
echo of the previous text. If I want to see the previous message I have two
choices - (a) scroll down in the current posting or (b) select the previous
posting.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:nI******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Tony Marston wrote:
Who says I can't post at the top? I never agreed to any such rules when I started to use newsgroups.


Although, I should at least thank you for sending your posts in plain
text, instead of the default invalid MSHTML crap it usually sends;
however, it is considered bad practise to top post. It's better to post
inline, below each section, so that others can tell exactly which
section you are replying to. Try searching for top posting in google,
or searching through the usenet faqs for more information on why.
Besides, my newsreader uses top posting by
default and as it's made my Microsoft, the greatest corporation in the world (NOT!), then it must be the correct way.


I wouldn't even pretend to call MS the greatest corporation in the world
when it comes to products designed for use on the net. Virus Express,
as I like to call it, doesn't seem to get very much right at all. It's
insecure, and I found it difficult to configure properly, so I just gave
up on it.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.

Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
My website also contains the following quote:

<quote>
Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason,
But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines,
And live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.
--James McGuigan
</quote>

and also:

<quote>
There are two basic approaches to software development:

1.. Rules oriented - where you follow a set of rules or a
methodology religiously, to the letter and without question and just assume
that the results, whatever they are, must be acceptable.
2.. Results oriented - where you aim to produce the best results in
the shortest possible time and use whatever methodology or rule set that
helps you achieve this aim.
One requires blind obedience, plus, from what I have seen on more than
one occasion, an unerring ability to invent interpretations of those rules
that are so obscure and perverse that they do nothing but increase
complexity and decrease productivity.

The other requires intelligence and skill, the ability to know which
rules and methods to adopt, when and how to adapt them to fit a particular
purpose, and when to reject them in favour of something better.

-- Tony Marston
</quote>

I do not follow rules blindly like a religious fanatic. If somebody invents
an artificial rule which gets in the way I simply ignore it. That is the way
of pragmatism, not dogmatism.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Dave Patton" <sp**@trap.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.71.223 .159...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk:
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to)
various newsgroups for several years where top posting was the
accepted standard that I came across the notion that bottom posting
was the "proper way". It struck me as ridiculous then and it seems
just as ridiculous now. I shall continue top posting until hell
freezes over


To quote you:
http://www.marston-home.demon.co.uk/...me(right).html
"I enjoy being able to produce high-quality software, and I like being
able to share my knowledge and experience with others, and also to
learn from the experiences of others. My motivation is the pursuit of
technical excellence and the satisfaction of a job well done."

Your attitude demonstrated in your recent postings, as well as
your apparent inflexibility, and unwillingness to use available
tools such as OE-QuoteFix(or a real newsreader program) would
suggest that the above quote was written in the past, and no
longer holds true.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
Ok, lets see how annoying top posting is... See if the following makes
any sense, and then tell me you still like top posting!!!

What newsgroups accept top posting as the standard? All newsgroups and
mailining lists I know prefer, and generally everyone uses bottom posting.

Tony Marston wrote:
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to) various
newsgroups for several years where top posting was the accepted standard
Then, you can expect your posts to be ignored until hell freezes over also.
that I came across the notion that bottom posting was the "proper way". It
struck me as ridiculous then and it seems just as ridiculous now. I shall
continue top posting until hell freezes over,
Why would I want to take up anything with Microsoft on an internet
related topic? None of their products are secure, standards compliant,
or easy to use in any way. Despite what you may think, Microsoft
doesn't own the internet (though they do hold a patent on some open
standards! [1])
and if you don't like it I suggest you take it up with Microsoft.
After all, they own the internet (or think they do).
You are the one who is anally retntive for not accepting and following
the guidelines for posting to usenet.
--
Tony (bottom posting is for anal retentives) Marston


If your still not convinced, check out some of these sites which I just
found by searching google for "top post". [2, 3 and 4]

[1] http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,17741,00.html
[2] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
[3] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/bottom-post.html
[4] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote in
<Nw******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Ok, lets see how annoying top posting is... See if the following makes
any sense, and then tell me you still like top posting!!!

What newsgroups accept top posting as the standard? All newsgroups
and mailining lists I know prefer, and generally everyone uses bottom
posting.

Tony Marston wrote:
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to)
various newsgroups for several years where top posting was the
accepted standard


I'd defend Tony Marston's right to top-post - in the scheme of things it's
hardy worth worrying about - but, in a ng where the knowledgeable replies
come from those who feel strongly about the issue, it seems pragmatic to ask
questions in a style that's likely to get the best responses.

I tried writing my questions on postcards and floating them down the river -
this is my preferred method and nobody is going to tell me different - but
I've had a very disappointing number of useful responses in c.i.w.a.s using
that method so I've reluctantly decided to bow to popular opinion.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Ok, lets see how annoying top posting is... See if the following makes
any sense, and then tell me you still like top posting!!!
[snip]
[1] http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,17741,00.html


Your footnotes were in the wrong place for an upside down message!
:-p

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:29:48 +0100, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while others
simply do not care.
Guess which people are here?
If I am responding to individual points in a large post then I will
usually
put them inline. That is for readability, not because of any rules.

As I have said before, my preference is for top posting because when I
click
on a message the first thing I want to see is the current text and not an
echo of the previous text. If I want to see the previous message I have
two
choices - (a) scroll down in the current posting or (b) select the
previous
posting.


*sigh* It's all about you, isn't it?

Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Neal wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:29:48 +0100, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while others
simply do not care.


Guess which people are here?


Might I suggest it's time to stop feeding the trolls? No-one who has
been paying attention would be in any doubt about the accepted norms
for posting on the main usenet groups; there's no reason for this one
to be any different.

Usenet happiness is a well-tended killfile.
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:29:48 +0100, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while others simply do not care.


Guess which people are here?


Only a miserable few complained. The rest couldn't care.
If I am responding to individual points in a large post then I will
usually
put them inline. That is for readability, not because of any rules.

As I have said before, my preference is for top posting because when I
click
on a message the first thing I want to see is the current text and not an echo of the previous text. If I want to see the previous message I have
two
choices - (a) scroll down in the current posting or (b) select the
previous
posting.


*sigh* It's all about you, isn't it?


No. There are plenty of other people who feel the same way and prefer to top
post. You are the one who is trying to enforce his silly set of petty rules
on others.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
I don't care which newsgroups do accept top posting and which newsgroups
don't. I post to all newsgroups in a standard way. I utterly refuse to adopt
a different set of rules for each individual newsgroup. This does not bother
the vast majority of people as only a very few fanatics actually waste time
in complaining.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:Nw******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ok, lets see how annoying top posting is... See if the following makes
any sense, and then tell me you still like top posting!!!

What newsgroups accept top posting as the standard? All newsgroups and
mailining lists I know prefer, and generally everyone uses bottom posting.

Tony Marston wrote:
It was not until after I had been browsing (and contributing to) various
newsgroups for several years where top posting was the accepted standard
Then, you can expect your posts to be ignored until hell freezes over

also.
that I came across the notion that bottom posting was the "proper way". It struck me as ridiculous then and it seems just as ridiculous now. I shall continue top posting until hell freezes over,


Why would I want to take up anything with Microsoft on an internet
related topic? None of their products are secure, standards compliant,
or easy to use in any way. Despite what you may think, Microsoft
doesn't own the internet (though they do hold a patent on some open
standards! [1])
and if you don't like it I suggest you take it up with Microsoft.
After all, they own the internet (or think they do).


You are the one who is anally retntive for not accepting and following
the guidelines for posting to usenet.
--
Tony (bottom posting is for anal retentives) Marston


If your still not convinced, check out some of these sites which I just
found by searching google for "top post". [2, 3 and 4]

[1] http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,17741,00.html
[2] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
[3] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/bottom-post.html
[4] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.

Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:29:48 +0100, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while
others simply do not care.


Guess which people are here?


Only a miserable few complained. The rest couldn't care.


OK, here's another one who finds it vastly preferable to be able to follow
the train of the conversation in a message than not to be able to.
If I am responding to individual points in a large post then I will
usually
put them inline. That is for readability, not because of any rules.

As I have said before, my preference is for top posting because when I
click
on a message the first thing I want to see is the current text and not an echo of the previous text. If I want to see the previous message I have two
choices - (a) scroll down in the current posting or (b) select the
previous
posting.
*sigh* It's all about you, isn't it?


No. There are plenty of other people who feel the same way and prefer to

top post. You are the one who is trying to enforce his silly set of petty rules on others.


How do you top post in a message where parts of one's answer are distributed
throughout the previous content so as to be positioned next to the relevant
sections? You don't--top-posting precludes being able to do that
effectively.

Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
I don't care which newsgroups do accept top posting and which newsgroups
don't. I post to all newsgroups in a standard way. I utterly refuse to adopt a different set of rules for each individual newsgroup. This does not bother the vast majority of people as only a very few fanatics actually waste time in complaining.


Your premise is that there are two camps: those who don't care and those who
complain. It's illuminating that you don't conceive of a third group who
can't follow the train of thought in your threads but don't bother
complaining about it.

Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
JRS: In article <cf*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, dated Mon, 9
Aug 2004 10:29:48, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.styleshee
ts, Tony Marston <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> posted :
It is considered back practice by *some people* to top post, while others
simply do not care.


It is considered good practice, also, to proof-read what one has written
before posting.

However, your arguments do not really not much matter to me; using a
better newsreader than yours, I can easily arrange in future to see
neither articles by you nor ones in response to them. Others will at
least be able to ignore what you write.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a
Quoth the raven Tony Marston:
Only a miserable few complained. The rest couldn't care.


No, the rest figured that a few telling you about it would suffice to
show you the error of your ways.

I see that is not the case.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
I don't care which newsgroups do accept top posting and which newsgroups
don't.
Ok, I'm going to assume you meant something like this:
“There aren't any, but I'm just saying there are to back up my stupid
argument”
I post to all newsgroups in a standard way.
Well, you haven't to this one... you've top posted!
I utterly refuse to adopt
a different set of rules for each individual newsgroup.
We're not asking you to adopt a different set of rules for each
newsgroup. just the same set of rules for *all* newsgroups.

This does not bother the vast majority of people as only a very few fanatics actually waste time
in complaining.


No, they just didn't bother complaining because they couldn't be
bothered with your ignorance, or felt those of us replying were doing a
good enough job.

BTW, have you considered users that attempt to read your emails using
assistive technologies such as aural or tactile devices, that can't as
quickly or as easily scroll to the quoted text, find and read the
relevant parts, and then back up again to read your reply? I dare say
there would be a few people who use these devices on this, or other
newsgroups/mailing lists you may post to — imagine how frustrated they
must get, and just give up even reading your posts, considering that
even those of us who aren't disabled are frustrated with you. That's
also another reason you should trim the quoted text to the relevant
parts only, so they don't have to listen for so long to irrelevant text.

Don't argue with us! You have been advised of the guidelines, so just
follow them and everyone will be happy.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #50

54 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.