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.

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.

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.

I think that's a great idea.

Doesn't go against principle for me.

What would happen if you hit >>?

Sounds good to me. I have no general principles about two-character quick-edits.

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.

And when -t was busy? I'd do it for her.

Would it be counterintuitive for them to be: i> b> instead? I can see where >i could come up in regular parlance, but i> is less likely to.

I can see where >i could come up in regular parlance

since
i shouldn't come up in regular parlance, I was assuming that it would carry over to quoted text.

I'm not sure why I still feel that it should be >i and not i>. I'll have to think on it. I suspect it's because i> feels like a failed tag.