Re^3: Code tags warning

in reply to Re^2: Code tags warning
in thread Code tags warning

I'm very much against making it mandatory. Both with code and readmore tags.

I can accept a warning, as long as I can turn it off (such as in User Settings), but I don't think there's much point in it.

Comment on Re^3: Code tags warning

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Code tags warning by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 15, 2005 at 19:42 UTC
... as with turning off the "preview" option -- which is restricted to those with a certain experience level? I think that's Friar, but too lazy too look it up, since the point is that one who has some significant experience may well have a vested interest in keeping PM useful... and the Monastery neat and tidy. So, I like Ambrus modification of the OP and first reply... as I like Joost's suggestion that we use css to make the warnings more prominent. However, I think Ambrus' concern that some folks (/me included) ignore stock warnings is best dealt with by (1) making the warnings specific and content-driven (the generic warning appears in EVERY preview, regardless of whether a warning is relevant) and (2) the Roy Johnson suggestion (at Re^2, well down in the thread) as augmented by Whitehawke's (tongue in cheek?) suggestions for adaptations of 'fortune' (AKA 'cookie').	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Code tags warning
by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 15, 2005 at 19:42 UTC

one who has some significant experience may well have a vested interest in keeping PM useful... and the Monastery neat and tidy.

However, I think Ambrus' concern that some folks (/me included) ignore stock warnings is best dealt with by (1) making the warnings specific and content-driven (the generic warning appears in EVERY preview, regardless of whether a warning is relevant) and (2) the Roy Johnson suggestion (at Re^2, well down in the thread) as augmented by Whitehawke's (tongue in cheek?) suggestions for adaptations of 'fortune' (AKA 'cookie').

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion