Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: monastery mark-upedness

by my_nihilist (Sexton)
on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:08 UTC ( #675454=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: monastery mark-upedness
in thread monastery mark-upedness

"ww have been here a lot longer than you and probably understand things about how this site works that you have no clue about"

  • in theory. jdporter is setting himself up to make an unavoidably redundant, hence excessively verbose, point. Or maybe you don't understand me.

"In fact, there are some improperly closed tags in your post, specifically, a few occurrences of the sequence <i><b>...</i></b>. (You've also got a couple other minor HTML infractions, such as not closing your <li> tags and not enclosing your <li> list in <ul> tags.)

The first point: That is bad XML,, not bad HTML. The second point: guilty! But ww can't be bothered to address that specifically and it should work under NORMAL conditions. You can "crank your conditions up" beyond those of WC3 but i won't waste more time quoting 4.01 specification.

"If you looked closely*, you'd realize that your post is not the same as BrowserUK's post:"

What gets said after that i think demonstrates some reading comprehension problem for jdporter (consider: relevence). Or mine. Or both. But use <c>tags i will (thanks).

"the "real source" of the writeup by clicking the xml link "

I think we have arrived at the real source of my problems and i apologize. However, it does not say in Writeup Formatting Tips to obey XML syntax (XML is not even mentioned!) The xml is a vague "clue" at best if this is a real concern.

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

who are you, Plato?

ps. If these are real issues then you should permit an un-penalized discussion (as Anonymous Monk suggested) -- but i suspect the point is actually just to permit "new users" to repeatedly make such mistakes so ww and jdporter can drop in with admonisments and corrections and then vote for each other. Now that's gansta

Another option (really, i would): Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.


hmph.


Comment on Re^2: monastery mark-upedness
Select or Download Code
Re^3: monastery mark-upedness
by jdporter (Canon) on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:36 UTC
    who are you, Plato?

    It's just a quote. By somebody else. People put such things in their sigs, you know. I give attribution on my homenode.

    it does not say in Writeup Formatting Tips to obey XML syntax

    Correct. That is because writeups do not need to obey XML syntax. The xml access to a node exists so that other applications can "add value" to PerlMonks. The writeup content is just a single blob within the XML. But you're right, this way (and as far as I know it's the only way) of viewing the real source of another monk's writeup is very far from obvious. I suppose the PerlMonks FAQ ought to say something about this.

    Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.

    No. But maybe something like "If you're not willing to learn how to get along in this community, go away."

    A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
Re^3: monastery mark-upedness
by eric256 (Parson) on Mar 21, 2008 at 19:39 UTC

    Isn't closing tags in the correct order part of HTML specifications? And I'm pretty sure that <ul|ol> around lists is in there too. If not maybe we do need to change it.

    Another option (really, i would): Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.

    I assume you think this because of the down votes you have received, but I can promise you that the majority of the down votes are related directly to your tone and the way you seem to continually attack people. One person upsetting you in a reply to one of your nodes is hardly reason to start a thread ranting at and attacking that person, which is how I perceived this entire thread and I would bet many others did as well.

    /me starts welding a new sign for the gates "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Long live CWAJGA!!!


    ___________
    Eric Hodges
      Eric
      I believe you're correct re nesting but did not seek out the cite. However, despite knowing to a certainty that you are correct re ol and ul I did copy the relevant part of the w3c standard for our sockpuppets.

      FTR, directly from the w3c 4.01 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.2):

      10.2 Unordered lists (UL), ordered lists (OL), and list items (LI) <!ELEMENT UL - - (LI)+ -- unordered list --> <!ATTLIST UL %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events - +- > <!ELEMENT OL - - (LI)+ -- ordered list --> <!ATTLIST OL %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events - +- > Start tag: required, End tag: required

      Note that closing the </li> within either type of list is optional.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://675454]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-07-29 09:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (212 votes), past polls