IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I can't recreate anymore
If I encounter it in the future, perhaps I can make a copy of the exact text that triggered it and email it to an z.iwethey representative.
________________
oop.ismad.com
New Just post the text.
Turn off all the conversion checkboxes and the text should post fine. Thanks.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New way too raw for my tastes
(* Turn off all the conversion checkboxes and the text should post fine. *)

Including the "newline" and "html" checkboxes? How do I get italics and paragraph spacing than? Do you mean all checkboxes, or only those with "convert" in the description? I would not mind the second that much if P tags did not require closing /P's. Requiring closing /P tags really gets annoying IMO.

BTW, it would be nice to have an HREF next to the weecodes checkbox for weecode help.

Thanks.
New Re: way too raw for my tastes
I would not mind the second that much if P tags did not require closing /P's. Requiring closing /P tags really gets annoying IMO.

It's merely a requirement of valid (X)HTML. That's got nothing to do with Zope or anything like that...
-YendorMike

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
- Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
New Re: way too raw for my tastes
Bryce, only you would bitch about something so damn trivial. Scott has worked his ass off on this software, which despite skaky DB drivers is fast, beautiful, and more or less up all the time. And YOU, the Galileo of pointless bitching, find it too hard on your delicate fingers to type a damn tag.

SHEESH! I'll bet your parents threw a party when you left home!
-drl
New [cackle]...____Galileo of____ :-\ufffd
New They changed the standard then
The issue came up about 3 years ago. Somebody quoted a passage from the W3C (sp?) website that demonstrated that a closing P tag is *not* required.

Maybe they backpeddled in the updates since, but it was not required a few years ago. Plus it is dumb extra typing and clutter, brought to us by the same people who invented that f*cken semicolon no doubt. I think of the P tag like an infix operator, such a plus sign in math or "." in Perl or "&" in VBscript.

So shuv your cackling where stellar photon radiation does not reach.
________________
oop.ismad.com
Expand Edited by tablizer Nov. 11, 2002, 01:25:09 PM EST
New Here's the deal.
This board emits HTML 4.01 Transitional.

The closing tag is required for compliance.

Feel free to write your own that emits HTML 3.2.

Dr Peter prescribes a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New lerpadism alert (new thread)
Created as new thread #62237 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=62237|lerpadism alert]
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
New Trouble is...
... the P tag was never an "infix operator". It was always a container. Which meant it had a beginning and an end. It's just that until HTML 4.0, the ending tag was optional.

Wade.

"Ah. One of the difficult questions."

New Re: way too raw for my tastes
Just for posting the bug report.

re: closing <p> tags: that's valid HTML 4.01 transitional, which is the target here. I can't very well claim that in the meta tags without requiring *all* content to be constructed that way.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Square brackets... - (admin) - (12)
         I can't recreate it (yet) - (tablizer) - (11)
             I can't recreate anymore - (tablizer) - (10)
                 Just post the text. - (admin) - (9)
                     way too raw for my tastes - (tablizer) - (8)
                         Re: way too raw for my tastes - (Yendor) - (6)
                             Re: way too raw for my tastes - (deSitter) - (5)
                                 [cackle]...____Galileo of____ :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     They changed the standard then - (tablizer) - (3)
                                         Here's the deal. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                             lerpadism alert (new thread) - (drewk)
                                         Trouble is... - (static)
                         Re: way too raw for my tastes - (admin)

It's their own fault! If they wanted to break the law without consequences, they should have gone into banking.
121 ms