Did you really intend your post to be such a mixture of unclosed tags, mixed font-weight and -style, etc? And if so, please clarify how is it supposed to differ from BrowserUk's above.
Whether or not the appearance of your post reflects inadequate previewing or not, it's quite plausible (to me, anyway) that many posters eliminate the "Preview" button when creating a node, or treat it as so many treat an "accept this license" box during software installs; that is, as something to click through as quickly (and carelessly) as possible.
Sorry if this sounds snarky (and I'm not trying to suggest that you're among those who simply haven't read the docs), but many of the formatting problems here are created by those who haven't understood them.
We can't cure the former, except by gentle guidance and by making the markup docs easier to follow, which might also automagically address the latter.
Puff: Please see Markup in the Monastery for one attempt at enhancing the guidance. | [reply] |
hmmm...i used <pre> tags to preserve the <code> in what appears to be in <code>...i had presumed that the caveat against this was in place because download is a product of <code> and not <pre>; but if you say my last post looked screwed up to you then either:
- you are borderline illiterate
- our browsers (me=linux/mozilla) are producing different output and i should never have used <pre>
As for my post being a re-iteration of BrowserUK's post, i agree -- vote for BrowserUk!
Regarding the preview button: I use it to death, but w/r/t a newbie poster i think the "in textarea" statement would be even more "intuitive" (if we can attribute intuition to newbies and knowlege to the practiced)
| [reply] |
Generally (though it did not work as expected here, probably due to neurons misfiring or somesuch) to show <code>...</code> tags, place them inside <c>...</c> tags and vice versa.
Use of <pre>...</pre> may be discouraged because it doesn't produce a download tag, but a more significant problem is the fact that long lines don't break, possibly producing a display wider than the user's normal browser window.
Both these facts are discussed in the various documents on markup.
And, BTW, even as a joke (if that's what it is) suggesting any poster, Monk or annonymonk, is "illiterate" falls into the "personal attack" range. As for browsers, as you may wish to explore, they don't all render the same .html and/or css in the same way, but following the Monastery-standard markup suggested in the docs tends to allow you to avoid problematic constructs.
For the record, I too like BrowserUk's (note, lc "k") suggestion, but if all you really wanted to do in the post to which my previous reply was directed, was to endorse that, why not just do so?
| [reply] |
| [reply] |