Equation test - please ignore

[Doug Kerr]

Equation test post TP101 - please ignore
This post may be edited from time to time.

The quick brown fox 3
The quick brown fox 2

 

[Doug Kerr]

Equation test post TP102
It is expected that this post will remain unchanged once "perfected".

This is test phrase TP102

dak

 

[Doug Kerr]

Equation test post TP103

This was entered via a BBCode "IMG" tag with no width attribute.

dak

 

[Doug Kerr]

Equation test post TP104

Image dimensions (per file): 200 px × 200 px.

HTML code width: 200 px

dak

 

[Doug Kerr]

Equation test post TP105

Picture inserted via the "Insert Image" button:

dak

 

[Ted Cousins]

Equation test post TP105

Picture inserted via the "Insert Image" button:

View attachment 14368

dak

FWIW HTML says 317 px wide, my screen says 430 although nothing wrong with that on my system (zooms, etc).

To see the HTML for an element in FireFox, I right-click on it then select "Inspect(Q)"

I had to mess with a setting or two so it shows the HTML clearly for just that element.

 

[Ted Cousins]

cannot say I'm in love with the OPF system - sometimes it shows an image and sometimes this - a link to the the image:

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

I have never, as to OPF, seen an image actually in the HTML. Always the image we see is created by referencing an image file held on the OPF site.

As to the post you referenced just above, here is a screen shot (truncated on the right) of the HTML code that displays the picture of the equation:

As to the "<a" tag element you show, that is an anchor reference, and I'm not sure exactly what that does. The one you show does not go to an image file.

But of course there is so much about this that I do not know.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ted Cousins]

Hi, Ted,

I have never, as to OPF, seen an image actually in the HTML. Always the image we see is created by referencing an image file held on the OPF site.

As to the post you referenced just above, here is a screen shot (truncated on the right) of the HTML code that displays the picture of the equation:

View attachment 14373

As to the "<a" tag element you show, that is an anchor reference, and I'm not sure exactly what that does. The one you show does not go to an image file.

But of course there is so much about this that I do not know.

Best regards,

Doug

I am referring to sometimes seeing this:

and sometimes seeing this, even in the same thread:

Screenshots from this thread in my system ... I don't see why I should have to click on an anchor to see an image in a post and, yes I know what an HTML anchor is, thank you.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

I am referring to sometimes seeing this:

View attachment 14374

and sometimes seeing this, even in the same thread:

View attachment 14375

Screenshots from this thread in my system ... I don't see why I should have to click on an anchor to see an image in a post and, yes I know what an HTML anchor is, thank you.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you had said.

Indeed I do not care for that "nicety" in the OPF software.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Test post TP106

This is a test of body text in the various "font families" available here in an OPF post

This is in Arial.
This is in Book Antiqua.
This is in Courier New.
This is in Georgia.
This is in Tahoma.
This is in Times New Roman.
This is in Trebuchet MS.
This is in Verdana.

dak

 

[Ted Cousins]

I've always liked "Arial" ...

Never knew that an OPF post font-family could be changed and, yes, I do know how to now...

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

I'm not sure what governs the font the browser uses for text that is not tagged as to typeface/font-family, and/or point size. That is the situation in the HTML code if we do not expressly mark some or all text as to one of those.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

HHHThis is body textHHH untagged
HHHThis is body textHHH Tahoma
HHHThis is body textHHH Trebuchet MS
HHHThis is body textHHH Verdana

Here it looks as if the untagged text is rendered in Verdana.

Earlier testing indicated that text untagged as to point size is rendered in 12 point.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

All the text after this is explicitly tagged as Arial.

HHHThis is body textHHH untagged as to point size
HHHThis is body textHHH tagged as 9 point
HHHThis is body textHHH tagged as *0 point
HHHThis is body textHHH tagged as 12 point
HHHThis is body textHHH tagged as 15 point
HHHThis is body textHHH tagged as 18 point

dak

 

[Ted Cousins]

Hi, Ted,

I'm not sure what governs the font the browser uses for text that is not tagged as to typeface/font-family, and/or point size. That is the situation in the HTML code if we do not expressly mark some or all text as to one of those.

Best regards,

Doug

Perhaps the "class=bbWrapper" does that for un-tagged text:

<div class="bbWrapper">Hi, Ted,<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what governs the font the browser uses for text that is not tagged as to typeface/font-family, and/or point size. That is the situation in the HTML code if we do not expressly mark some or all text as to one of those.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Doug</div>

Google AI:

How Classes and Fonts Work Together

• • • The HTML Hook: You add a class attribute to an element, such as <p class="special-font">Text here</p>.
    • The CSS Rule: In your stylesheet, you target that class using a period (.) and assign font properties to it.
    • Sharing Styles: Multiple elements can share the same class name to display the exact same font styling across different parts of a webpage.

Common Font Properties Used with Classes

• • • font-family: Defines the typeface (e.g., Arial, Times New Roman).
    • font-size: Defines how large or small the text appears.
    • font-weight: Defines text thickness (e.g., bold, normal).
    • font-style: Defines inclinations like italic. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

If you'd like, I can show you a quick code example of how to connect an HTML class to a custom font using CSS.

• • Dummies
    How to Define Classes for HTML5 and CSS3 Programming
    Mar 26, 2016 — It works like this: * Add the class attribute to your HTML questions. Unlike ID, several elements can share the same class. Settin...
  • W3Schools
    CSS font property - W3Schools
    Definition and Usage. The font property is a shorthand property for: font-style. font-variant. font-weight. font-stretch. font-siz...
  [/I]

I got the 'bbWrapper' class from your posted <div> element, with right-click 'Inspect(Q)' ...
... within your <div> element, text parts such as headings could be defined differently in HTML by <span> elements explicitly or by other class+CSS. Could be that's what BBcode [H] results in?

In other words, you don't have to "expressly mark some or all text as to one of those."

best,

Ted.

 

[Ted Cousins]

Hi, Ted,

I'm not sure what governs the font the browser uses for text that is not tagged as to typeface/font-family, and/or point size. That is the situation in the HTML code if we do not expressly mark some or all text as to one of those.

In OPF's XenForo when you type text into the browser, it goes into a <div> container of class ".bbWrapper".

I asked Google AI what the XenForo default font is for that class:

By default, the .bbWrapper class in XenForo does not have a single dedicated font; instead, it inherits XenForo’s global system font stack. XenForo uses this system stack so that the forum content matches the native typography of the user's operating system. Depending on the device being used, the default font will render as:
Windows: Segoe
UIMac / iOS: Helvetica Neue or San Francisco
Android: Roboto or Droid SansLinux / Ubuntu: Ubuntu

How to Change the Font [for a XenForo programmer, not us]

If you want to override this fallback behavior and set a specific font strictly for post content and BB Code elements, do not edit core files. Use one of the following methods:

Via ACP (No Code): Go to Admin Control Panel > Appearance > Style Properties > Typography. Modify the global font rules there.

Via CSS (Targeted): Open your extra.less template and add a custom font-family directly to the class:css.bbWrapper {
font-family: 'YourFontName', sans-serif;
}

Yet another variation in what size stuff appears on someone's System, i.e. Operating System, smartphone, tablet, desktop computer, 2K, 4K, 8K monitor, TV, auditorium ...


Apparently, the default font for ".bbWrapper" in Windows is "Segoe" ...

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

Thanks for all this. I have never looked into HTML other than the basics.

In OPF's XenForo when you type text into the browser, it goes into a <div> container of class "bbWrapper".

Aha! I have of course seen "bbWrapper" in the forum post HTML code but didn't try to understand what that was.

I asked Google AI what the XenForo default font is for that class:



Yet another variation in what size stuff appears on someone's System, i.e. Operating System, smartphone, tablet, desktop computer, 2K, 4K, 8K monitor, TV, auditorium ...


Apparently, the default font for "bbWrapper" in Windows is "Segoe" ...

That may depend on which vintage of Windows is involved.

Thnaks again so much for that further insight.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ted Cousins]

<>
Aha! I have of course seen "bbWrapper" in the forum post HTML code but didn't try to understand what that was.

That may depend on which vintage of Windows is involved.

Doug

Yep, Microsoft ... consistency 'R' us ...

best,

Ted.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

An online font identifier suggest that the typfeace used by default in OPF posts as I see them here, of all the "fonts" I have installed here, the best match is to Verdana, a typeface that I may well have nominated someplace as a system default.

Comparisons made here seem fairly consistent with that.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

Here:

The quick brown fox 1234567890
The quick brown fox 1234567890
The quick brown fox 1234567890

The first and last line are "untagged" as to typeface, while the second line is set for the font family "Verdana". All are untagged as to point size.

Verdana is a typeface I have installed here.

Here is a screen shot of the three line as seen here, scaled to be comparable (here) in size to the three lines as they first appeared.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

• I have several lines of text in a post being freshly composed.

• I select only one and use the dropdown menu to set its font family to Times New Roman.

• I select that line again and drop down the font family menu. It initially shows "Times New Roman".

• I select one of the other lines (to which I have not assigned a font family)

• I drop down the font family menu. It initially shows "Verdana".

That suggests that here text to which I have not assigned a font family is considered to be in Verdana.

That is probably how (here) Verdana gets in the list of available font families in the dropdown menu, which looks like this here:

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

The quick brown fox 1234567890

 

[Ted Cousins]

Hi, Ted,

• I have several lines of text in a post being freshly composed.

• I select only one and use the dropdown menu to set its font family to Times New Roman.

• I select that line again and drop down the font family menu. It initially shows "Times New Roman".

• I select one of the other lines (to which I have not assigned a font family)

• I drop down the font family menu. It initially shows "Verdana".

That suggests that here text to which I have not assigned a font family is considered to be in Verdana.

That is probably how (here) Verdana gets in the list of available font families in the dropdown menu, which looks like this here:

View attachment 14379

Here's my drop-down:

Came preset to Verdana too.

So OPF XenForo got that "wrong", but the principle of what Google AI said remains reasonable in that someone's Mac laptop probably would not come up with the same drop-drop list, nor the same pre-selected font family ...

... and the Mac's post font would not be precisely the same screen width as a Windows PC. Ergo, no change to the situation.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

Here's my drop-down:

View attachment 14380
Came preset to Verdana too.

Aha. Well, not surprising.

So OPF XenForo got that "wrong", but the principle of what Google AI said remains reasonable in that someone's Mac laptop probably would not come up with the same drop-drop list, nor the same pre-selected font family ...

... and the Mac's post font would not be precisely the same screen width as a Windows PC. Ergo, no change to the situation.

Sure.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ted,

I think the bottom line of all this is this: If I put in an OPF post this passage:

******
Accordingly, the flux deposited on the focal plane from the scene region being considered is given by:

(etc., etc.)

******

will that assuredly be readily understandable by the unknown viewer?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ted Cousins]

Hi, Ted,

I think the bottom line of all this is this: If I put in an OPF post this passage:

******
Accordingly, the flux deposited on the focal plane from the scene region being considered is given by:

View attachment 14381

(etc., etc.)

******

will that assuredly be readily understandable by the unknown viewer?

Best regards,

Doug

I'm not that knowledgeable about "unknown viewers" and I think "readily readable" might be more appropriate than "readily understable" especially with that equation, don't you think?

The rendering on my system which is similar to yours is highly readable.

My version of your formula - posted by BBcode IMG, 332 px native wide:

<img src="/forums/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fkronometric.org%2Ftmp%2FMML%2520LibreOffice%2520PNG%2520332W.png&amp;hash=6eab30b2c1c7e496e60ec06a7f6bd07d" data-url="https://kronometric.org/tmp/MML%20LibreOffice%20PNG%20332W.png" class="bbImage" data-zoom-target="1" style="" alt="MML%20LibreOffice%20PNG%20332W.png" title="" width="" height="" loading="lazy">

Notice the class .bbImage not of my doing and no 'width' attribute. No idea why, grump.

 

[Ted Cousins]

Here's from the Misago site, screenshot cropped and uploaded:

I uploaded the cropped screenshot from my computer, wow just look at that width, not of my doing!

<img src="https://openphotographyforums.com/forums/attachments/misago-render-jpg.14384/" data-url="" class="bbImage" data-zoom-target="1" style="" alt="Misago render.jpg" title="Misago render.jpg" width="1182" height="631" loading="lazy">

If you click on the above link it fills the screen and the class changes to "shrinkToFit" !!!

Are we wasting our time ?! It's like we need a big table:

Method, Where to, actual size, screen size.

Would be an excellent Last Word but too much work for me ;-)

 

[Doug Kerr]

Here's from the Misago site, screenshot cropped and uploaded:

View attachment 14384

It is hard to judge size in the way that is meaningful here without some surrounding body text. And again I have no idea how (relatively) large that formula looked as you were composing it.

And of course I have very little considered what happens on other sites than OPF. I am not at all surprised that on other sires the results might very dramatically.

On one site that I rarely visit directly, in a test of dropping in a picture of a formula from the Windows clipboard, it put the whole image, pixel-by-pixel, in HTML, in the post as I received it from the asiteite.

I would still be fascinated to see a screen shot of how this post looks on your screen:

https://openphotographyforums.com/forums/threads/equation-test-please-ignore.26846/post-218924

Are we wasting our time ?!

Well, in a way, yes! But this is what we do!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ted Cousins]

I would still be fascinated to see a screen shot of how this post looks on your screen:

https://openphotographyforums.com/forums/threads/equation-test-please-ignore.26846/post-218924

OPF HTML:
<img src="https://openphotographyforums.com/forums/attachments/doug-post-png.14386/" data-url="" class="bbImage" data-zoom-target="1" style="" alt="Doug post.png" title="Doug post.png" width="1843" height="783" loading="lazy">