Re^2: monastery mark-upedness

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: monastery mark-upedness by jdporter (Paladin) 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	[reply]
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	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: monastery mark-upedness by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 21, 2008 at 20:49 UTC
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` [download] Note that closing the `</li>` within either type of list is optional.	[reply] [d/l]