Re^4: Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content)

I guess I don't quite understand what you mean by "displayed separately." Do you mean placing sigs in their own <td> element, like the subject is?

For what it's worth, you could do this yourself using Javascript put in the Free Nodelet. I think I'll take a crack at it. I'll write up a node about it if anything comes of it.

Comment on Re^4: Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content) by eric256 (Parson) on May 02, 2005 at 17:54 UTC
He doesn't want the sigs to be part of the reply node. I don't think that will ever change though and its not realy a bad thing. We have a feature that most communities don't, historic signatures. ;) In most places when you change your sig it changes all your posts, now it does not. The extra div and css is plenty to do all the formating you want with signatures. ___________ Eric Hodges	[reply]
Re^6: Check your signature (Signatures mistaken for content) by kelan (Deacon) on May 02, 2005 at 18:13 UTC
The extra div and css is plenty to do all the formating you want with signatures. I thought so too, but not quite. The reply text is inside a `<ul>` element inside the reply `<td>` element, so that the text shifts a bit to the right. The sig divs and text are also inside that `<ul>`. That prevents some of the potential formatting because the sig block doesn't extend horizontally over the entire reply area. For example, you can't create a sig box that matches the subject box at the top of the reply node. The sig box will only extend left to the left margin of the text, not to the left border of the reply node. And because the sig is in the same `<td>` as the text, it will only extend right to the box with the "[reply]" link, not all the way to the right of the node.	[reply]
Re^7: Check your signature (mark-up) by tye (Sage) on May 03, 2005 at 03:44 UTC
I'd really like to go back in time and prevent signatures from being parts of nodes (despite being one of the few people who actually made regular use of this fact for a while and frequently customized my .sig per node). And I may one day get to implementing things so that new nodes no longer have signatures as node contents. But even if signatures were not parts of nodes, they would still not be permitted to extend into the gaps on either side. They might end up in a separate `<tr>`, though I certainly think that they might not (and certainly could and likely would remain in the same `<td>` as the node contents). - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]