Simon ,'Objects In Space'
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
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.
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.
since i shouldn't come up in regular parlance
Except for those internet-type people who don't capitalize in a civilized manner. And those of us who are prone to posting bits of E. E. Cummings.