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.
We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die.
Mal ,'Serenity'
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.
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?
§ 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.
JenP - Oct 28, 2004 7:18:00 am PDT #8526 of 10000
And when -t was busy? I'd do it for her.
Liese S. - Oct 28, 2004 7:19:10 am PDT #8527 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
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.
§ ita § - Oct 28, 2004 7:21:43 am PDT #8528 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
amych - Oct 28, 2004 7:23:57 am PDT #8529 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
i at the end of a closing tag, I can easily see. At the beginning of a line, much less so, unless a lot of people are in the habit of starting their quote quickedits without the (optional) space. However, I have no sense of this for anyone who is not me.
i> looks less like a quotey thing to me than >i, but I'll admit to being wacky and counterintuitive about things like that. Either way, I'd be happy to have it and would get used to it.