• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Testing BBCode font size for anonymous users.

How about text-formatting functions vs browsers, evaluating it under both the anonymous and registered modes?

Here's what i observe using Microsoft Edge v122 for Linux... Font sizes "0" to "5" are displaying exactly the same on my end. While 6 is a bit larger and 7 even more, but that's it. So the overall range is only 3 font sizes:

This is size #1 Default size
This is size #2 idem
This is size #3 "
This is size #4 "
This is size #5 "
This is size #6 Medium size
This is size #7 Maximum size

This is size #1 Default size
This is size #2 idem
This is size #3 "
This is size #4 "
This is size #5 "
This is size #6 Medium size
This is size #7 Maximum size

Notice that's not 4 sizes as suggested by a .JPG capture contributed by Transform...
P.S. The On-Line parser actually interprets between BB "CODE" delimiters!! On my side anyway... Ah, and the faulty doublon is defective (as if all sizes stripped)!
DMT-Nexus On-Line Read-Back of  Font Size BB Code using Edge Browsers [800x430] .png

Euh... Actually i think the « faulty doublon » has been creatively replaced by the BB Code version which i was expecting to remain untouched, as code...
Last edited:
This could be how it's made to look for off-line visitors, assuming that what i see using MS-Edge is what others see:

DMT-Nexus would host the full-size original in case a zoom-in is requested but only show its thumbnail version while providing an alternative source via some anonymizing proxy.

Easy-click zooming is only available AFTER log in/registration but still doesn't totally defeat human (text-mode) copy of the associated alternate link which comes with an extraneous space character embeded to confuse bots until removed...
Last edited:
More testing... This time i've copied the illustration in some 'BB Code' album created minutes ago, back to FireFox:

TWO differences:

  1. The « IMG » BB Code now has "width" & "height" parameters. The image is cut, not shrinked...
  2. The URL includes the string "thumbnail", while my previous thumbnail simulation did not.

I've got to wonder which one will pass the test of time.

So far it seems the "thumbnail" ain't much of a thumbnail at all if i set width to 800 and height to 430 (full-size):

Oh! Quite another type of thumbnail indeed.

Well, my objective is to adopt a revised text-formatting signature which doesn't only appear to be about having a free meal, since it's possible IMO to get some fair level of exposure and yet also create suitable incentive to register and stick around - if that's compatible with the board's own agenda, of course - and i bet it is.


Nice set of emoticons, by the way!

The effect i wanted should be more like this:


The funny thing is that the "thumbnail" string just disapeared from the URL again. Edited using MS-Edge, just in case...

Back to the font size test:

This is #0​
This is #1
This is #2
This is #3
This is #4
This is #5
This is #6
This is #7

0 to 5 look the same. Could there be interference by the "push notifications" permission? Or what about JAVA/JAVAScript, etc?...

Hows that one below? Setting width to 160 and height to 86:


A thumbnail of the 3rd kind...

Good day, have fun! ☮️
Last edited:
Also, you know you can upload an image as an attachment and then choose to insert it as a thumbnail or full image? You can also click the inserted image and then resize to your likings.



Kind regards,

The Traveler
Also, you know...

{ N.B.: the on-line parser just trashed my reply. }

Thank you for the quick reply, i do remember the « attach » BB Code now and noticed both of your pictures look the same off-line while the later enlarges after going on-line. I knew i saw that sort of forum behaviour before, just not clearly. On another hand i also vaguely remember it once became necessary to insvestigate after observing severe attachment limitations, too long ago to recall the details, so it's quite possible i must refer to the manufacturer's manual indeed. Yet if it's OKay i'll use some of what was demonstrated previously in hope that selection remains mutually acceptable as a trade-off; please don't wait to inform me in case of further issues.

My testing is conducted using Windows, Linux, MS-Edge, FireFox and Opera. Chrome/Chromium are ready, in reserve...

Good day, have fun!! ☮️
Top Bottom