|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^2: monastery mark-upednessby my_nihilist (Sexton)
|on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:08 UTC||Need Help??|
"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 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.