If I have a thread with no unread posts and I click it, sometimes it'll give me just the last post, and sometimes it'll give me the last 10.

t edit: OK, it looks like clicking regular threads will give me the last 10, while clicking threads in the right column will give me the last 1.

edit: OK, it looks like clicking regular threads will give me the last 10, while clicking threads in the right column will give me the last 1.

Oh. Interesting. 'Cause I'd gone to SP, of course. I wonder, why is that so?

I was reading Kristen's postcard post in Press and wondering where she meant to put the line breaks (after I made a postcard out to "Les Moonves CBS"). And I was thinking, why does <BR>, out of all the common HTML tags, not have a quick-edit? Like

Haikus break on five
l And seven. They're not fragile;
l They just like coffee.

(l is for linebreak, since b is taken.) Also, I think <BR> should be on the list of HTML codes you can use on the Quickedit page. For lo, it hath confused even Joss.

Also, I think <BR> should be on the list of HTML codes you can use on the Quickedit page.

Done.

And I agree that an "l" quickedit for <br> would be a cool thing.

... Because I have no sense of embarrassment I will now mention the idea I had once for quick-edit for links. You'd write "h" at the beginning of the line (for "href", as "a" is obviously a bad idea) and then paste the link, and then put a space, then the text you want to be linky, all on the same line, and then hard-return again for normal text: like

I have found the
h [link] most amazing story
about Angel and a girl named Meri Sue

would come out as

I have found the most amazing story about Angel and a girl named Meri Sue

Because, quickedit, it's not just about not knowing how to do HTML; it's being able to be faster! And about not having to remember to close tags, because you are a lazy bastard. And not having to worry about your clumsy fingers making one " and one ' and then breaking the board. And if you *also* don't know enough HTML to make a link, then it's still just ducky.

Innerestin' idea Liz. Here's another thought - If we implemented that, maybe we could disallow "longhand" href's. There would be no need for them, and the problem of mismatched quotes within a URL would solve itself.

In my mind, it makes more sense to use l as the "link" abreviation and "r" for a return. But things like that which make sense to me rarely make sense to anyone outside my head.

Hmm we could take La Liz's suggestion to it's logical conclusion. Create quick edit tags for all the HTMl tags we currently allow, and disallow regular HTML. Voila - no more problem html.

You're going to shove that can of screen cleaner where? No wait, it was only a passing thought. I didn't really mean it. Please no..... t Arrgh.

Hello, emergency? Well you see....

I think L for link is a good idea. R for return isn't so bad either. Can I mention that Hil R, while not being a technical implementer, always makes good suggestions on this board? Like how she solved the "admins can't edit" problem, and helped boil some others down with logic. She's definitely on the "helpful problem solver" team that makes things shiny for us on the "whinging plaintiff" side of this thread.

I don't think you can nest quick-edit tags, which I like to do in quotes (or in the future, haiku).

disallow regular HTML. Voila - no more problem html.

There are real reasons why I wouldn't like this:

1. Other tags like b, i, etc. don't break the board when they're not closed properly. They just mistakenly create a lot of bold, italic, etc. text.

2. a quickedit tag always leaves a space on both sides of its contained text. Something like emboldened can't be done with quickedit; you need "real" tags.

t edit and 3. What Noumenon said about nesting tags.