Comments on: Cites & Insights has a new home

By: walt

walt — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:20:20 +0000

Dorothea,

Retroactively? Life’s too short. Prospectively? Let me think about it (I suspect upgrading to a newer Word would make it real easy…). It continues to be key that I can spin out HTML versions in no more than half an hour total after the PDF is ready: That step is one of the two “damn nuisance” steps in C&I production, but at least with HTML (filtered) it’s a pretty trivial damn nuisance step. (Updating the annual index is the other and longer one…)

By: Dorothea Salo

Dorothea Salo — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:42:25 +0000

Walt, if you ever want those Unicode-ized, just ask.

By: walt

walt — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:23:23 +0000

Thanks, both of you. (The black diamonds are strange, but..probably some browser’s way of interpreting an unreadable character.)

This is truly strange, given that I moved the files without modification.

I do find that the HTML files read differently from the new site and the old site (which is still up).

Damned if I know what’s going on, but I’ll try to find out.

By: Pat Knuth

Pat Knuth — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:54:10 +0000

The first time I looked at Bibs & Blather, whole paragraphs looked like they were done in “WingDings” font. Perspectives was displaying question marks in the place of apostrophes.

I’m using IE 6.0. When I looked at View, Encoding, it was set to Unicode. When I changed that setting to Western European (Windows) the WingDings paragraphs were changed to a font I could read and the apostrophes were where they should be.

I’ve always read the PDF format before, so I don’t know if this is something that just happened at the new site or not.

By: Kathleen de la Pena McCook

Kathleen de la Pena McCook — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:08:10 +0000

When I go to the site I can read it, but there are lots of little black diamonds with questions marks scattered throught (I mean dozens). It doesn’t impair understanding but it’s odd.