Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

This is a test.

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

Quote:

---

This is a test.

---

---

If that was a test then this is the answer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Okay, I think the quoting is working okay now on the 2.0 side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Boldness of quote is control by the bold tag.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Boldness of quote is control by the bold tag.

---

When I reply with quote, it bolds the quote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Boldness of quote is control by the bold tag.

---

When I reply with quote, it bolds the quote.

---

If I reply with quote to a previously quoted text, the bold tag will bold all text underneath it. This would explain why the very top isn't in bold, but everything else is. I suppose the solution is to initially bold everything instead of just quoted text. Or we can just get rid of the bolding altogether since it really doesn't make that much of a difference. What do you think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose: Alright, nested quoting!
I think if it's going to be bright blue it's easy enough to read without the bolding. The gray was a bit easier to read when bold, but it might not be necessary on 2.0

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose: Alright, nested quoting!
I think if it's going to be bright blue it's easy enough to read without the bolding. The gray was a bit easier to read when bold, but it might not be necessary on 2.0

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I find the non-bold easier to read in that blue. It's bright enough that the bold type starts to 'bleed' a little bit to my eyes; the shapes blend into each other just a bit and it's harder to read comfortably. That tends to happen to me when the medium it projecting light; I occasionally have the same problem with very bold white text on black. The gray was more subdued, and easy to read in all strengths and sizes, but the blue is bright, so I vote non-bold.


I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

---