But Daniel, I think a large part of that issue is not wanting to have to do the whitefont to begin with, not just the issue of having to highlight.
It's all about the coat.
Host ,'Conviction (1)'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Liese S. - Oct 27, 2004 8:48:12 am PDT #8516 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
DCJensen - Oct 27, 2004 9:04:59 am PDT #8517 of 10000
All is well that ends in pizza.
::shrug:: It's only one letter per paragraph.
Moot now, I guess.
amych - Oct 28, 2004 5:13:28 am PDT #8518 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
I just edited a post in natter to stop the runaway whitefont, and here's what I found there:
the original post had the tags incorrectly nested, viz:
<font color="white">
blah blah </font>blah.
And the whitefont ran away with the spoon (in Safari, anyway). Moving the opening font tag inside the > fixed things (as, I'm guessing, would moving the closing tag to the next line), but my question is, have we always enforced incorrectly-nested tags that strictly? And should we? (the latter as a practical question and not an "if I were the queen of the universe everyone's HTML would have to validate" kinda thing.) Or was it a Safari being a hardass thing all along?
Jon B. - Oct 28, 2004 5:18:27 am PDT #8519 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
have we always enforced incorrectly-nested tags that strictly? And should we?
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's not us that's enforcing anything. It's the browser.
Or was it a Safari being a hardass thing all along?
That would be my guess.
amych - Oct 28, 2004 5:21:28 am PDT #8520 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
It's not us that's enforcing anything. It's the browser.
Thanks. I hadn't noticed this before, and I switched browsers at about the same time we started on making code changes, so I wasn't sure if it was Safari or some markup-fixing widget run amok.
§ ita § - Oct 28, 2004 6:36:11 am PDT #8521 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
That's the same thing I ended up fixing in the spoilers thread, btw.
I'm wondering, as a variant on DCJ's suggestion a way back -- is two character quickedit going against principle? I'm thinking of a specific set of cases -- those following >, to be precise.
Which'd mean that >i >s >b, would give you quotes italicised, spoiler fonted and bold, respectively.
Jon B. - Oct 28, 2004 6:50:19 am PDT #8522 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I think that's a great idea.
DXMachina - Oct 28, 2004 6:50:21 am PDT #8523 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Doesn't go against principle for me.
What would happen if you hit >>?
amych - Oct 28, 2004 6:53:30 am PDT #8524 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Sounds good to me. I have no general principles about two-character quick-edits.
-t - Oct 28, 2004 7:05:58 am PDT #8525 of 10000
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
I would use those two character quick-edits a lot. I would love them and squeeze them and call them George. I would feed them and take them for walks and eat all my broccoli.