Showing posts with label blogspot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogspot. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Using CSS To Wrap Your Pre-Formatted Blogger Text

Hey There,

Today's post is going to be a bit short, by which I mean that it's not going to be long. Of course, it also won't be short in the sense that it won't be abrupt and rude.

See ya,





Just kidding... ;)

I spent most of the time I had to come up with something to write about today, driving myself nuts trying to figure out how I could make this blog's code examples and block-quotes work in IE, FireFox and Opera; not to mention all of the other browsers out there. I don't think I'll ever be able to get the code examples to properly indent on Lynx, but at least it's readable now.

Even as I worked on that issue, I had this nagging feeling that I was going to have to go back and re-tag all 520 odd posts we've already put out, like I had to with our follow up on the absorption of knowledge in the computer age, which was the first post we'd ever done where the entire post had to look like a letter when seen from a bird's eye view. So, that was a bummer.

I started noticing that pretty much every forum I visited was filled with nothing but useless flaming. Guys who had the same question as I did, but were answered with some variation of "Why would you want your lines to wrap if you've already pre-formatted your text?" after which non-solution after non-solution would be offered up to not-answer the question ;)

Of course, there are some good reasons to want to be able to word-wrap your pre-formatted text. For instance, in this blog, we put up code from time to time. Sometimes a lot, sometimes none. But when we do put up code, we wrap it in the <pre> tags to preserve the indentation. This might not be necessary, but there's only so much leeway you have on Blogger. You have to use the tools they give you. No use putting in format tags that they don't honour. So, anyone can see that a loop within a loop within a conditional, with tabbed indents, can move the code out pretty far from the left-hand margin. So, if one of the triple-indented lines contains a good amount of text, I'd want that text to wrap around (just like it would in a standard terminal editor) instead of disappearing off under the right-side column.

Anyway, this post ends with good news that's both succinct and helpful (especially if you publish code on Blogger, too). All you actually need to do is add a "post pre" section to the CSS style section of your Blogger template. The beauty of this solution is that, not only does it work on all three of the aforementioned browsers, but it also fixed all of our previous code posts in one fell swoop :)

The code itself is here, you can add it anywhere in the:

/* Posts
-----------------------------------------------
*/


section. The CSS code is directly below, and the "post pre" container may not exist in the template you're using, just as it didn't in mine:

.post pre {
white-space: pre-wrap; /* This is for IE and other browsers that just have to be different */
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; /* This is for FireFox and Mozilla Browsers */
white-space: o-pre-wrap; /* This is for Opera */
}


And, just like that, 500 or so wrongs have been righted. We'll be back tomorrow after we're all done being excited :)

, Mike




Discover the Free Ebook that shows you how to make 100% commissions on ClickBank!



Please note that this blog accepts comments via email only. See our Mission And Policy Statement for further details.

Monday, February 2, 2009

HTML Character Entities On Linux Or Unix - Follow Up

Hey there,

Today's post hearkens back to a post we ran back in December of 2007 regarding publishing Perl, shell and other code on Blogspot. The problem isn't really limited to blogspot.com, of course. Most sites that let you directly add content, and use a standard markup tagging system, have issues with many of the symbols found in Linux and Unix programming/shell code. I, personally, have gained a much deeper appreciation for bbcode, although it suffers from the same problems depending on what you want to "really" show on your page, just to a lesser degree.

The issue with publishing code in HTML (See, I'm going to stop kicking blogspot.com now ;) is that many of the symbols are the same as those used in the markup language itself. For instance, the < and > characters can't be written exactly as they appear when you're writing an HTML page to showcase your code, since all HTML tags (I believe ;) open with the < character and close with the > character. This can result in errors ranging from problems saving your posts to entire chunks of your code disappearing without any errors generated at all (the latter being the most disarming)

Obviously, I've been meaning to do this for a while (only 14 months from intent to action ;), but - for today - I've put together a list of common HTML character entities and how they should "really" be typed when you write your HTML. If I missed any, I'd love to hear from you, as I'd prefer for this to be a complete list, if that's at all possible :)

NOTE: Not all of these may display correctly in your web browser, since some may not be in your native character-set. Most of the fancy stuff (Greek, foreign characters, etc) was found on Elizabeth Castro's HTML XHTML Character Entity Page. Please visit that site to ensure that the information found here hasn't been expanded upon, and give her the credit she deserves for compiling so many more characters than I could ever imagine having to type :)

Enjoy, and welcome back to the work week (hopefully, you're on vacation :)

Cheers,

BASIC CHARACTERS (REGULAR):

& is actually typed as: &amp;
> is actually typed as: &gt;
< is actually typed as: &lt;
" is actually typed as: &quot;
´ is actually typed as: &acute;
¸ is actually typed as: &cedil;
ˆ is actually typed as: &circ;
¯ is actually typed as: &macr;
· is actually typed as: &middot;
˜ is actually typed as: &tilde;
¨ is actually typed as: &uml;
° is actually typed as: &deg;
÷ is actually typed as: &divide;
½ is actually typed as: &frac12;
¼ is actually typed as: &frac14;
¾ is actually typed as: &frac34;
≥ is actually typed as: &ge;
≤ is actually typed as: &le;
− is actually typed as: &minus;
² is actually typed as: &sup2;
³ is actually typed as: &sup3;
× is actually typed as: &times;
¢ is actually typed as: &cent;
¤ is actually typed as: &curren;
€ is actually typed as: &euro;
£ is actually typed as: &pound;
¥ is actually typed as: &yen;
¦ is actually typed as: &brvbar;
• is actually typed as: &bull;
© is actually typed as: &copy;
† is actually typed as: &dagger;
‡ is actually typed as: &Dagger;
⁄ is actually typed as: &frasl;
… is actually typed as: &hellip;
¡ is actually typed as: &iexcl;
ℑ is actually typed as: &image;
¿ is actually typed as: &iquest;
‎ is actually typed as: &lrm;
— is actually typed as: &mdash;
– is actually typed as: &ndash;
¬ is actually typed as: &not;
‾ is actually typed as: &oline;
ª is actually typed as: &ordf;
º is actually typed as: &ordm;
¶ is actually typed as: &para;
‰ is actually typed as: &permil;
′ is actually typed as: &prime;
″ is actually typed as: &Prime;
ℜ is actually typed as: &real;
® is actually typed as: &reg;
‏ is actually typed as: &rlm;
§ is actually typed as: &sect;
­ is actually typed as: &shy;
¹ is actually typed as: &sup1;
™ is actually typed as: &trade;
℘ is actually typed as: &weierp;
„ is actually typed as: &bdquo;
« is actually typed as: &laquo;
“ is actually typed as: &ldquo;
‹ is actually typed as: &lsaquo;
‘ is actually typed as: &lsquo;
» is actually typed as: &raquo;
” is actually typed as: &rdquo;
› is actually typed as: &rsaquo;
’ is actually typed as: &rsquo;
‚ is actually typed as: &sbquo;
  is actually typed as: &emsp;
  is actually typed as: &ensp;
  is actually typed as: &nbsp;
  is actually typed as: &thinsp;
‍ is actually typed as: &zwj;
‌ is actually typed as: &zwnj;

SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR CHARACTERS:

Á is actually typed as: &Aacute;
á is actually typed as: &aacute;
 is actually typed as: &Acirc;
â is actually typed as: &acirc;
Æ is actually typed as: &AElig;
æ is actually typed as: &aelig;
À is actually typed as: &Agrave;
à is actually typed as: &agrave;
Å is actually typed as: &Aring;
å is actually typed as: &aring;
à is actually typed as: &Atilde;
ã is actually typed as: &atilde;
Ä is actually typed as: &Auml;
ä is actually typed as: &auml;
Ç is actually typed as: &Ccedil;
ç is actually typed as: &ccedil;
É is actually typed as: &Eacute;
é is actually typed as: &eacute;
Ê is actually typed as: &Ecirc;
ê is actually typed as: &ecirc;
È is actually typed as: &Egrave;
è is actually typed as: &egrave;
Ð is actually typed as: &ETH;
ð is actually typed as: &eth;
Ë is actually typed as: &Euml;
ë is actually typed as: &euml;
Í is actually typed as: &Iacute;
í is actually typed as: &iacute;
Î is actually typed as: &Icirc;
î is actually typed as: &icirc;
Ì is actually typed as: &Igrave;
ì is actually typed as: &igrave;
Ï is actually typed as: &Iuml;
ï is actually typed as: &iuml;
Ñ is actually typed as: &Ntilde;
ñ is actually typed as: &ntilde;
Ó is actually typed as: &Oacute;
ó is actually typed as: &oacute;
Ô is actually typed as: &Ocirc;
ô is actually typed as: &ocirc;
Œ is actually typed as: &OElig;
œ is actually typed as: &oelig;
Ò is actually typed as: &Ograve;
ò is actually typed as: &ograve;
Ø is actually typed as: &Oslash;
ø is actually typed as: &oslash;
Õ is actually typed as: &Otilde;
õ is actually typed as: &otilde;
Ö is actually typed as: &Ouml;
ö is actually typed as: &ouml;
Š is actually typed as: &Scaron;
š is actually typed as: &scaron;
ß is actually typed as: &szlig;
Þ is actually typed as: &THORN;
þ is actually typed as: &thorn;
Ú is actually typed as: &Uacute;
ú is actually typed as: &uacute;
Û is actually typed as: &Ucirc;
û is actually typed as: &ucirc;
Ù is actually typed as: &Ugrave;
ù is actually typed as: &ugrave;
Ü is actually typed as: &Uuml;
ü is actually typed as: &uuml;
Ý is actually typed as: &Yacute;
ý is actually typed as: &yacute;
ÿ is actually typed as: &yuml;
Ÿ is actually typed as: &Yuml;
ℵ is actually typed as: &alefsym;
∧ is actually typed as: &and;
∠ is actually typed as: &ang;
≈ is actually typed as: &asymp;
∩ is actually typed as: &cap;
≅ is actually typed as: &cong;
∪ is actually typed as: &cup;
∅ is actually typed as: &empty;
≡ is actually typed as: &equiv;
∃ is actually typed as: &exist;
ƒ is actually typed as: &fnof;
∀ is actually typed as: &forall;
∞ is actually typed as: &infin;
∫ is actually typed as: &int;
∈ is actually typed as: &isin;
⟨ is actually typed as: &lang;
⌈ is actually typed as: &lceil;
⌊ is actually typed as: &lfloor;
∗ is actually typed as: &lowast;
µ is actually typed as: &micro;
∇ is actually typed as: &nabla;
≠ is actually typed as: &ne;
∋ is actually typed as: &ni;
∉ is actually typed as: &notin;
⊄ is actually typed as: &nsub;
⊕ is actually typed as: &oplus;
∨ is actually typed as: &or;
⊗ is actually typed as: &otimes;
∂ is actually typed as: &part;
⊥ is actually typed as: &perp;
± is actually typed as: &plusmn;
∏ is actually typed as: &prod;
∝ is actually typed as: &prop;
√ is actually typed as: &radic;
⟩ is actually typed as: &rang;
⌉ is actually typed as: &rceil;
⌋ is actually typed as: &rfloor;
⋅ is actually typed as: &sdot;
∼ is actually typed as: &sim;
⊂ is actually typed as: &sub;
⊆ is actually typed as: &sube;
∑ is actually typed as: &sum;
⊃ is actually typed as: &sup;
⊇ is actually typed as: &supe;
∴ is actually typed as: &there4;
Α is actually typed as: &Alpha;
α is actually typed as: &alpha;
Β is actually typed as: &Beta;
β is actually typed as: &beta;
Χ is actually typed as: &Chi;
χ is actually typed as: &chi;
Δ is actually typed as: &Delta;
δ is actually typed as: &delta;
Ε is actually typed as: &Epsilon;
ε is actually typed as: &epsilon;
Η is actually typed as: &Eta;
η is actually typed as: &eta;
Γ is actually typed as: &Gamma;
γ is actually typed as: &gamma;
Ι is actually typed as: &Iota;
ι is actually typed as: &iota;
Κ is actually typed as: &Kappa;
κ is actually typed as: &kappa;
Λ is actually typed as: &Lambda;
λ is actually typed as: &lambda;
Μ is actually typed as: &Mu;
μ is actually typed as: &mu;
Ν is actually typed as: &Nu;
ν is actually typed as: &nu;
Ω is actually typed as: &Omega;
ω is actually typed as: &omega;
Ο is actually typed as: &Omicron;
ο is actually typed as: &omicron;
Φ is actually typed as: &Phi;
φ is actually typed as: &phi;
Π is actually typed as: &Pi;
π is actually typed as: &pi;
ϖ is actually typed as: &piv;
Ψ is actually typed as: &Psi;
ψ is actually typed as: &psi;
Ρ is actually typed as: &Rho;
ρ is actually typed as: &rho;
Σ is actually typed as: &Sigma;
σ is actually typed as: &sigma;
ς is actually typed as: &sigmaf;
Τ is actually typed as: &Tau;
τ is actually typed as: &tau;
Θ is actually typed as: &Theta;
θ is actually typed as: &theta;
ϑ is actually typed as: &thetasym;
ϒ is actually typed as: &upsih;
Υ is actually typed as: &Upsilon;
υ is actually typed as: &upsilon;
Ξ is actually typed as: &Xi;
ξ is actually typed as: &xi;
Ζ is actually typed as: &Zeta;
↵ is actually typed as: &crarr;
↓ is actually typed as: &darr;
⇓ is actually typed as: &dArr;
↔ is actually typed as: &harr;
⇔ is actually typed as: &hArr;
← is actually typed as: &larr;
⇐ is actually typed as: &lArr;
→ is actually typed as: &rarr;
⇒ is actually typed as: &rArr;
↑ is actually typed as: &uarr;
⇑ is actually typed as: &uArr;
♣ is actually typed as: &clubs;
♦ is actually typed as: &diams;
♥ is actually typed as: &hearts;
♠ is actually typed as: &spades;
◊ is actually typed as: &loz;


, Mike




Discover the Free Ebook that shows you how to make 100% commissions on ClickBank!



Please note that this blog accepts comments via email only. See our Mission And Policy Statement for further details.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Where Do We Go From Here? A Possible New Home For This Linux And Unix Blog

Hey there,

As promised today's post is going to be more of a toe-in-the-water Opinion/Editorial piece and (after reading, before reading or anywhere in between) if you could answer the new poll on the right hand column, we'd greatly appreciate it. Depending upon what the community wants, we may be making some drastic changes in the way this blog works and is presented (Nothing bad - our opinion - rather different for the better). Skip to the SUMMATION line if you don't want to read all the nitty-gritty details (this post is running over 2000 words in length before proofing).

PREMISE: Our main issue is that we're seriously considering moving away from Blogspot and transitioning our blog to an independent URL (e.g. http://www.linuxandunixmenagerie.com and/or http://linuxandunixmenagerie.net or http://linuxandunix.net which we've already snatched up). That being said, we want you to know that we're not considering this arbitrarily or on pure whimsy ;) The following is a listing of some of our reasons for considering this move.

1. COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION: This has been a big issue over the year and half that we've been operating and, although the point has become belaboured, we do understand. As things are today, we only accept comments via email for 2 reasons:

a. To avoid comment spamming: This was a problem when we first started out because too many unmoderated comments about porno, violence, drugs, alcohol and everything else reprehensible to Google ended up on posts about "How to change directories" and the situation was unacceptable. Of course, Google would notice and we'd have to worry about getting that NC-17 intro page they put up on some blogs.

b. To avoid comment spamming in Moderation: Same problem as above, except that the exact same situation ends up existing even when you decide to moderate your comments. Assuming that Google's bots are crawling your blog (which they, essentially, own), they also crawl the category, tag, etc directories, including the ones with comments waiting to be moderated. We can't control it because we can't modify the robots.txt file (or upload a .htaccess file) and, inevitably, we'd get a polite email about how we're not supposed to have any pages that violate Google policy, etc, because they crawled our posts (waiting to be moderated and, of course, rejected) before we could read them.

Email was a great solution for a while, but - as some of you out there may know - doing comments by email (although safer, since Google doesn't crawl our email account) is a burden. Now that we've been up for over a year, and this is our 452nd post, we get a lot of email and some of it gets lost in all the non-blog garbage mail. We leave spam filtering off so that we can be sure we don't delete any legitimate mail from users/readers of the site. This results in longer and longer wait times for responses and, sometimes, missing emails altogether until a future date when we circle back around and find a few that slipped by. Most folks are appreciative that we get back to them at all (though it may be months after the original email comment was sent - while other folks are getting same-day service), but it's becoming unacceptable to us.

Allowing moderated comments would relieve some of the pressure on us (allowing users to suggest and provide opinion - even argue if they want ;) and make the site much more organic and natural (since, as things stand now, we have to receive an email, reply to it to get proper attribution permissions and then manually post the comment to the end of any particular post). If our site was not on Blogspot, and was, instead, hosted on our own domain using an entirely separate service provider (not another blog hosting solution like WordPress.com, etc), this part of the site's functionality would improve significantly.

2. SCRIPTS, PICTURES, VIDEO AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS: Currently there is no way for us to make this work to our complete satisfaction. We believe that you'll agree that this is the case, also. For instance, just one such embarrassing moment appeared in our post on really simple steganography in which we posted a series of jpg images to illustrate how easy it was to hide a message in a picture. Although Google allows uploading of jpg's and gif's, it changed all of our original pictures into bmp's, and also our second batch. Of course, this conversion completely ruined the hidden message in the picture's binary structure since it was re-encoded! Video corruption has also been an issue so, when we do that, we host it on YouTube.

A much larger part of this issue is that this site contains a lot of scripts and, given the formatting options we have available (and no ability to attach text files or PDF's, etc), the process of transferring them from the site to your editor of choice can be extremely painful. For instance, if we don't want our code to all push to the left and look like garbage, we have to use the <pre> and <blockquote> tags in the supplied editor. However, as you may have noticed, if you just copy and paste the code from the web page to your editor of choice, it pastes the entire thing as ONE LINE!!! Of course, this makes sense since we're using the <blockquote> tag to retain formatting and indentation, but some of our scripts are very long and reformatting them, again, on your own machine can be a gigantic pain in the arse. We, of course, can access the original text and copy/paste it that way. However, in the instances where we don't have direct access to the admin interface for the blog, the following trick works (although you still end up jumping through hoops):

1. Pull up the page, with the script you want to use, in your web browser.

2. Save the file as a single web page.

3. Open that web page up in any editor that supports divs and/or tables (MS Word or Wordpad, Open Office Writer, etc).

4. Then copy and paste the code portion into a simple editor (like vi or notepad). Note that you shouldn't just resave your web page as a document, as this will also copy all the formatting markups, which is the same as copying/pasting that single line of garbage code by copying/pasting from web browser directly to editor.

Another gripe we have is that we can't include these scripts as attachments for easy download. This would make it so that the scripts would look nice on the web page AND you could download a clean copy and work with that directly.

Moving to our own blog host and domain would allow us to have greater control over the contents of our posts and, in the process, increase their accessibility for you, the reader. If we make this move, we would be able to host all of our own video, pictures, scripts, PDF's and any other multimedia content locally and provide download links for your ease of access and use. It would also allow us to create a "sister site" to the blog where we could provide these downloads on another domain (or subdomain) on the same server, where you could go to find scripts and download them (while obviating the need to host some stuff on SourceForge, which we haven't made public yet because it's just one more thing that we don't have the time to babysit - nothing against SourceForge, of course; it's just impractical to begin managing yet another site in order to keep this blog going). This move would also allow us to host our own CVS repositories and script updates in a more efficient and cohesive manner.

3. BRANDING AND SEO: This one shouldn't be of concern to a majority of readers (by which we mean anyone but the staff ;), but having a site with a domain name that comes somewhat close to the name of the site makes more sense. We're actually indexed very well by Google (Thank you :) and realize that the move would cause us to drop down more than a few pegs (at least for a while) but we can't honestly reconcile this site's Blogspot subdomain name (linuxshellaccount) with this site's actual name (The Linux and Unix Menagerie). Also, having our own site would allow us to include "Terms Of Service," "Privacy Policy" and other such necessary pages in a much less awkward way.

SUMMATION: Again, your input is valuable to us. We appreciate each and every one of our readers (even the ones who think we're a bunch of idiots ;) and want to know how you feel about this proposed change. If you have the time, consider this: Would you prefer that we remain on Blogspot and maintain the status quo or would you prefer that we move to our own self-hosted domain and provide you with a much greater level of service and accessibility that, quite frankly, we feel all of you deserve?

Please take a second and check a box in the poll on the right column near the top and let us know how you feel. We greatly appreciate your input and "will" consider it when making our ultimate decision. Seriously, if everyone wants us to stay on Blogspot, we'll stay here, even though it makes some of what we do more difficult (for us and for you), because the bright side to keeping things the same is that hosting on Blogspot doesn't cost us a dime (only our time and effort).

Also, if we do decide to make this change, and you would like to be informed of our new address, rest assured that we would update all of our social bookmarking sites, forum signatures, Technorati, LXer, etc, and try to work out a deal with Google where we can forward the linuxshellaccount subdomain to our new domain for a while. We would also provide a separate "one-shot" mailing list that you could subscribe to so that we could send you a notification of the new site's address and other details to make your experience more enjoyable and/or efficient. Also, although we have a "Missions and Policies" statement at the top right of every page, we don't have a separate and specific privacy policy listed. However, we can guarantee you that, if you were to sign up for our notification list, we would send you an email with all the information you need, at the time of the move, and never mail you again (except under special circumstances - read on). It's our unwritten policy (actually written in most of our email replies over and over and over again ;) that we will never use your email for any sort of advertising, we won't sell it, we won't trade it, we won't use it to SPAM you with updates about the site (You can subscribe to FeedBurner, on any page, for that ;) and we won't ever write you again unless you initiate contact (whereby all the aforementioned principles still hold true, except for the one where we say we won't ever write you again. We will, however, never reply more than once to any email sent to us). Also, to be clear, if we provide a form whereby you can sign up to be notified of the site's URL change, you will not be signing up to a "mailing list" (insofar as that term is used in Internet Marketing circles). You'll only be adding your name to a list of emails that will be mailed to once, and once only. To carry the analogue just one step further, you will be "unsubscribed" the moment that email is sent. You won't have to jump through hoops or click any back-links to prevent us from bothering you in the future ;) We don't like getting scammed any more than you do and guarantee that your anonymity will not be compromised unless you want it to be. We hold your right to privacy as sacrosanct and will not pull any other email-list stunts that we haven't thought to list here. We have no interest in making your life any harder or filling your email box with ludicrous pap. ...however, if you want to learn how to turn your PC into a self-operating virtual ATM using our proven turnkey system that allows you to make millions while you space out watching TV... ;)

We hope this post has effectively covered what we are looking to do to improve the blog for your ease-of-use, enjoyment and utility and look forward to tallying your poll results. As always, you can send us a comment (via the "Send Me A Comment" link at the top right of every page) regarding this post, just as with any other.

Cheers,

, Mike




Please note that this blog accepts comments via email only. See our Mission And Policy Statement for further details.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Corrected Some Blogspot Code Auto-Rewrites in Previous Two Posts

Just a quick shout.

I noticed a few errors caused by Blogspot's tag interpretation that made the code I posted for the last 2 days unworkable. I've fixed these errors.

If you notice any others (they almost always have to do with the < and > characters), please feel free to email me and let me know, and I'll be happy to revise whatever didn't make it to the post page as I intended.

You can check out this post regarding some of the problems posting code to blogspot. Maybe it will help you out a bit, too :)

, Mike




Sunday, December 9, 2007

Publishing Perl, Shell and Other Code on Blogspot

Good Day

Today's post is slightly off-topic, although directly to the point of what this blog is about. Today, I'd like to pass on a few tips that might help fellow bloggers, like myself, in the future.

The tips we'll be going over today will help tremendously (especially if you're just getting started) if you publish a blog that includes lots of examples of scripting and/or code. The default setup and editors for Blogspot and Blogger provide certain mechanisms for making this possible, however, they're not entirely obvious. I spent a good deal of time piecing this stuff together from various posts in the Google Blog Help group and Blogspot's Help Center. Many thanks to all the people who contribute to these sites.

The first thing to note is that Blogspot/Blogger does allow for you to include a <code> tag, which it seems to honor. Unfortunately, this does not preserve the integrity of your code. All it does is indent the entire section of code slightly and remove all indentation!

The <blockquote> tag, also does approximately the same thing.

In order to get your code to post "as it is," you need to include both a <blockquote> and a <pre> tag (with closing tags, of course - e.g. </pre> </blockquote>).

But, that's not the end. If you use < redirects or Perl's while input markers (< and >) you'll get nailed with gigantic "Tags cannot be unclosed" errors that sometimes end up being larger than your post itself, and prevent it from publishing.

The only reason you can see the one's I've put up in this post is that I entered them as "&lt;" and "&gt;" (for < and > respectively). Even more confusing; in order for me to print out those special characters so that they showed up the way you need to type them, I had to enter them differently. For instance &lt; had to be entered as & amp; lt; (Just remove the spaces between the 3 elements. I'm getting dizzy from all the dereferencing ;)

I'll be going through all my old posts and throwing in those format tags (luckily I've only been at this for a few months (about 70 odd posts))

Hopefully, this post will be helpful for anyone looking for information specific to including computer code and script in your Blogspot/Blogger posts.

BTW, you would not believe how convoluted this post looks in the editor ;)

Example straight code:


if [ this -gt that ]
then
how_about_that=1
fi < /export/home/food.txt
<-- Note space added before /export to avoid getting the publishing error.

Example formatted code:


if [ this -gt that ]
then
how_about_that=1
fi </export/home/food.txt


Best Wishes,

, Mike