a problem encountered in drupal
I’ve been writing quite a bit for the Logic book, and am quite happy with the drupal presentation of it. But today I have run into a problem trying to copy and paste text from a Word file into a new Bookpage. The carriage returns in the text are not being obeyed in the drupal version. It’s 40 exercise passages, numbered 30-70 (which i began renumbering), but it’s coming out as one long paragraph! I have tried entering additional carriage returns in Edit mode, and they show up in Edit mode, but they don’t show up in “view.”
Earlier I cut and pasted a ten page Word doc (Arguments and non arguments) and it worked fine. these exercises were to be on a child page to that one.
i have used the image uploader. the images have gone on the homepage. is it possible to insert them right into the text at desired locations?
On the image uploading, you should be able to put them right in the flow of the text–you’ll also get some options for positioning the image.
On the Word copy-and-paste fun…hmmm. That might be stickier, because it’s a matter of the formatting from the Word file transferring over. I’m sure there will be a way around it someplace….
Comment by PatrickGMJ — October 18, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Updates on the above issues: in a phrase, “My bad!”
They both came down to some default settings for posts in Drupal that needed to be changed. Drupal allows for a few options for the “Input Format,” depending on the particular needs of the site’s users. I should have changed the default to “Full HTML” to capture what the editor gives. When I changed that, it looks like the cut-and-pasted material quickly became prettier.
Similarly with positioning the images. When inserting the image, there’s an option for the input format. Switching that to full html made the images come in at the cursor location. N.B. on this, though: there are a couple options for alignment and size. We’ll probably want to experiment a bit with those to get a feel for the layout they produce.
Comment by PatrickGMJ — October 19, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
I’d be interested in seeing what the problematic cut and paste content looks like; that would help me better grasp the issues at stake here.
Craig, I know you gave out the URL to this site in our meeting last week, but I forgot to write it down.
What was it?
Comment by John Morello — October 24, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
After reading some of the abridged letters from Feminism, the Essential Historical Writings, I had some thoughts about the characteristics that distinguish the feminist movement from other civil rights clashes. For example, in the Abigail Adams letters John refers his wife as a member of that “other tribe.” The Seneca Falls Declaration is monumental insofar as women are deliberately compared to other oppressed categories of people—but categories that have historically been drawn along ethnic, cultural or national divisions. As gender can now be included in that list, the legitimacy of the anti-slavery movement must, by analogy, be equally applied to the feminist movement. A question occurred to me in class that I think I can now answer a little better: “what can account for the slow progress—relative to other civil rights movements founded on ethnicity, etc—of the feminist movement in achieving equal rights and treatment of women?.” Consider the following “liberalist” passage from the Seneca Falls Declaration. “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it” (pg 78). This is founded on “liberal” ideology (put forth by Mill and Lock in Feminism and Philosophy and the Subjection of Women” where “liberty” of the individual is manifested in political freedom, and demonstrated by our individuality. To maintain individuality in this liberal context requires “inalienable” rights; but this requires a Cartesian account of self, and for us to be convinced that Descartes was correct. But he wasn’t correct. When I think of myself as “self,” I am first inclined to say “American”, “white”, “tall,” but I would not first say “male,” presuming that descriptor to be to vague and general. Men and Women coexist daily within the cultural and ethnic divisions that have, even today, yet to achieve the western and Cartesian ideals of pure liberalism, in which the individual constitutes the state but there is a sharp division between the two. It’s hard to remedy the disunions between male and female, without first fixing the more superficial (though no less important) clashes amongst groups of men and women following divisions of class and ethnicity. “He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise”—Ok, but are we talking about slaves? Westerners? Tatars? Furthermore, in many of the historical examples I noticed that many authors retain the habits and language of their “oppressors,” insofar as they use words that explain things in terms of “essence” or “nature”; an approach that could be problematic, seeing that Men have used similar types of arguments to legitimate claims of authority. Such examples included: “That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth…”, or “that such laws as conflict…with the true and substantial happiness of woman are contrary to the great precept of nature…” There are others, but I don’t mean to make arguments against feminist writers. Rather, I’m just reflecting on some limitations of the liberal ideal and its foundation on “essential” definitions, and I’m anxious to see the Existentialist approach to the “natural” and “essential.”
Comment by William Swanson — May 22, 2007 @ 4:24 pm