Gotcha. Snark revoked (in the one instance only).
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.
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.
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.
I wish to give major props to the developers for supporting HTML entities in taglines, allowing me to spell Michael Bérubé correctly.
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!
P-C, all this has been remedied in the lab.
Am-Chaun has done some testing there, but only by her lonely.
Bring your t br's on!
You're not having a good linking day today, are you, Gus.
You're not having a good linking day today, are you, Gus.
No.
Fixed, now.
P-C, What were you testing here: [link] (#168)?
Remember my original problem of not closing the original tag with a right caret?
<BROops I'm dumb
I tried it with various other tags:
<bThis should be here and bold</b>
And I thought maybe the code would fill in that right caret and make the tag functional, but instead it just obliterated everything from the left caret onward.