| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | yup... this can be done with html windows... but like mole said... you couldn't contribute this... would have to keep it local because of the html tags used. I actually considered doing this myself till I saw that it also showed the html tags in the overview on my phpdvdprofiler site. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mole: Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
........I will be very pleased if we are able to use the three known text effects (B, I and U) for overviews in DVD Profiler.
In my local database, I already do this my using an HTML Overview window so I can get bold & italic text in overviews. Editing is a bit time consuming as I have to type in all the formatting tags & so I'm only about a third of the way through my DB. Obviously I have to take care not to contribute my versions & I keep those parts of the profile locked to avoid them being overwritten.
But it does look nice! Wow! I did not know I could this. Boy do I have a lot of work on my hands now!  Thumbs up for both you and SH84 for this!  | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
I do not like the ticks nor would I like text mark up like bold face or italics for the overview. IMO The overview should be the plain text representation of the overview on the cover. No bold, no all caps, no footnotes just plain text. The rules should be changed accordingly. I agree with this. All this mucking about with the overview is pointless IMHO. Who cares if the third word on the 2nd line is italic? Lets just have plain text - so we can read it - and search for text without worrying about tick marks. And also agree that this does not require any changes to existing profiles. Let sleeping dogs lie. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,916 |
| | Posted: | | | | I could go for a plain text without tick marks too. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | The last couple of day I've been busy adding HTML text effects to my Overviews and I think it would be best if the standard Overview window would support HTML like the Notes window does now. If however it will be locked to a small number of effects I think at least these should be supported:
<b> and </b> for Bold
<i> and </i> for Italic
<u> and </u> for Underline
<sup> and <sup> for Superscript (example: for the Registered trade mark (®) behind "Oscar")
<big> and </big> to increase font size by one (example: Headlines)
<small> and </small> to decrease font size by one (example: Asterisk Notes) | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Martin about the list of effects with maybe the exception of the font size change ones, I'd hate to see a bunch of profiles ping-ponging simply because people disagree about whether certain words are bigger than others in an overview. I'd also add subscript, just in case.  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 97 |
| | Posted: | | | | The ticks are just plain annoying. It would be much better to have basic effects. If we can't have those then we should just have plain text.
Ideally eventually we will have bold & italic. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Be patient. It will happen.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
I do not like the ticks nor would I like text mark up like bold face or italics for the overview. IMO The overview should be the plain text representation of the overview on the cover. No bold, no all caps, no footnotes just plain text. The rules should be changed accordingly. What he said | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | There is a reason for the ticks if you all will think about what the intent of them is for and the primary reason the studios make use of Italics and Bold and whatever to begin with. They have unfortunately twisted it a bit and as a result in my opinion we are encountering a lot of things that do not really address the purpose of the usage but....
A title in a paragraph is is not simply a string of words that is part of sentence, it is separate and dsitinct complete entity of its own that exists within a sentence COMPLETE. This is common writing, the Studios, understand at least that much about writing.
So we have to be patient and wait for Ken to give the us the Bold, Italics, Underlining ability and perhaps superscript, but no Font Sizes or Colors.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
I agree with Martin about the list of effects with maybe the exception of the font size change ones, I'd hate to see a bunch of profiles ping-ponging simply because people disagree about whether certain words are bigger than others in an overview.
I'd also add subscript, just in case. I'm glad you agree. However I do think adding the smaller font size would be great if it will be officially allowed to add footnotes which is being discussed in this topic. You could use super/subscript for that too, but this results in huge gaps between two or more footnote lines. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Martin:
Question for you. I worry about people arguing over font size. How would you suggest avoiding that. That is why I have not encouraged font size selection, BUT if there is a rational method of not starting Font Wars and Font Arguments. then....maybe.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Question for you. I worry about people arguing over font size. How would you suggest avoiding that. That is why I have not encouraged font size selection, BUT if there is a rational method of not starting Font Wars and Font Arguments. then....maybe. If there would be a simple rule telling us the smaller fontsize may only be used for footnotes (or the bigger fontsize only for headlines) there would not be or do not have to be any arguments. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,916 |
| | Posted: | | | | A superscript for referencing footnotes shouldn't be considered part of the "font size" category. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
A superscript for referencing footnotes shouldn't be considered part of the "font size" category. No, and to avoid the problem of a gap between two lines I discovered you could use subscript on line one and superscript on line two, but it will be a lot easier if we could use a smaller font. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hmmmmm, sounds easy enough to me, Martin. But with this bunch????
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|