Sounds good to me. I have no general principles about two-character quick-edits.
How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious.
Wash ,'Objects In Space'
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 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?
-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.
amych - Oct 28, 2004 7:26:18 am PDT #8530 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
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.
§ ita § - Oct 28, 2004 7:27:57 am PDT #8531 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
But you're already busted, is what I mean. It's already going to cause problems.
amych - Oct 28, 2004 7:30:36 am PDT #8532 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Gotcha. Snark revoked (in the one instance only).
Liese S. - Oct 28, 2004 7:51:40 am PDT #8533 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
Yeah. Intuitive-wise, I feel like it should be >i, too. I just thought that i> might reduce the already-bustedness of the cummings types.