I think that's a great idea.
Tracy ,'The Message'
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.
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.
But you're already busted, is what I mean. It's already going to cause problems.