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.
Willow, check you out! Witch-Fu!
Buffy ,'Lessons'
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.
Liese S. - Oct 28, 2004 7:19:10 am PDT #8527 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
§ 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.
Gus - Oct 28, 2004 12:58:35 pm PDT #8534 of 10000
Bag the crypto. Say what is on your mind.
What would happen if you hit >>?
'>>i', for instance, would leave the closing '>' outside the tag. Since the combination is not a code, nothing. I don't think :i or :b or :s would come up in regular speech too often.
Betsy HP - Oct 29, 2004 2:29:22 pm PDT #8535 of 10000
If I only had a brain...
I wish to give major props to the developers for supporting HTML entities in taglines, allowing me to spell Michael Bérubé correctly.
Polter-Cow - Oct 30, 2004 8:02:00 pm PDT #8536 of 10000
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
Gus, your code needs to stop thinking <BR> tags are just uppity bold tags that need closing, stat. (That is, I thought it had to do with a misuse of the tags before, but in actuality, it does that to them even if they're used correctly.)
...Please.
Also, the code's also closing anchor tags I've already closed, adding unnecessary </A>s at the end of the post. So far, this hasn't caused any problems, but if you consider it a bug, so it goes.
Keep up the good work!