Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine

Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content)

by cog (Parson)
on Apr 30, 2005 at 16:32 UTC ( [id://452880]=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

It seems that a reasonable number of monks have a normal signature.

By normal, I mean that it sometimes gets confused with the text they're posting.

Consider using "small" tags around the signature, adding a couple of extra lines before it, perhaps a "-- " line, or something else that clearly separates your signature from your text.

Sometimes, it gets rather confusing out there.

  • Comment on Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Check your signature
by castaway (Parson) on May 01, 2005 at 13:02 UTC
    Answer: Change your CSS (either in your browser or on user settings). Look at the html of a page, and you'll notice that some busy goblin has neatly added "pmsig" classes to everyones signatures. So all you need to do is make your CSS display these differently, and presto: recognisable signatures.


      Is there an example of how to add a CSS for the signature? I tried the following in the "On-Site CSS Markup" field of User Settings:

      <style type="text/css"> .pmsig { font: lucida; font-size: small; font-decoration: italic color: pink } </style>

      With no luck. I haven't worked with CSS very much.

      Any assistance would be appreciated!

      My unfinished sig here:

      Soon to be unemployed!

        There are two issues here.
        1. The sig tag is wrapped in <div class="pmsig">, so the selector should be div.pmsig
        2. Your browser will silently ignore broken css, making it hard to debug - see the (untested) edits below

        /* perlmonks will add style tags for you */ div.pmsig { font-family: lucida; font-size: small; font-style: italic; color: pink; } has some quick and easy css tutorials to start you off.

        Update: Tested the css

Re: Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content)
by halley (Prior) on May 02, 2005 at 13:39 UTC
    I've said this before, but I hope it's not TOO redundant. I think .sigs should be a separate entity, and not something that is pre-inserted into the reply text. Then the system could do any manner of CSS or html "--" separation of the sigs from the content in a consistent manner, and people could turn off all .sig displays if desired.

    [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

      Your wish is granted! Someone added this a while ago. Sigs are now wrapped in two div tags, one with class pmsig, and the other with class pmsig-ID where ID is the user id of the poster. You can add on-site CSS in your user settings to change how they are displayed.

      For example, I have sigs set to a font-size of 2px. "What's the point if you make them so small?" you may well ask. Mostly it's so that if someone accidentally gets their post content wrapped in the sig tags, I can zoom in my browser text and still read it easily, yet keep most sigs small enough that they are easy to ignore.

        I'm aware of the pre-inserted pmsig wrappings. That's not my wish. Re-read my post, please. I am saying that the system should not stick ANYTHING sig-related in the reply box. The sig is not the reply. If I have a .sig, it should be displayed (or not displayed) separately, just as the subject and other node metadata are displayed separately.

        [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://452880]
Approved by Arunbear
Front-paged by grinder
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-04-16 20:38 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found