In short, it was a not a near miss with a slight typographical correction to be made.

Yes, changing ',' to ';' and inserting a ' is anything but slight typographical correction (no, I didn't write it, just FYI). (:

it still doesn't flow since there is no clear antecedent for "it".

Where could that antecedent be in "...your post; it's..."? Boy, that is hard to find! Granted, there are other possible choices that work as well or better, but that one works just fine. :)

In any case, I've corrected the mistake of it only being on the form for replies (well, there are a couple of less-used forms that still lack it) and made it much clearer, IMHO:

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

And, just in case anybody wonders, no, we won't make that "PerlMonks-approved HTML" a link to Perl Monks Approved HTML tags, despite that seeming an obvious improvement. Unfortunately, doing so would make Tab no longer take one from the "title" field to the "body text" area (in both browsers).

But such a link should be added below the text area. Such used to be included there but somebody complained (IIRC) about those hints saying "Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place" which was deemed inappropriate except when posting a root node. I (now) disagree, in part because we have no shortage of people posting replies that should be root nodes.

So I'll probably add (all of) those hints back for replies eventually if nobody beats me to it.

I would rewrite the sentence.

Not s/would/did/? Well, I won't go searching through the pedantry of this thread looking for it, then. If you actually have a clearer rendition of those instructions to offer, then please point such out or include such in a reply to this node. Thanks in advance.

For the antecedent I'm looking at the previous subject, not the last word in the predicate. Subject is missing (implied "you"). Meat the the sentence is what to use. "it" is "these rule?"?

My editors were always after me to clarify pronouns such as "it" when it seemed obvious to me when I wrote it. But the changes did not make the prose worse, and usually was indeed clearer.

How about "…your post. See below for “Perl Monks Approved HTML”."

That is, use a full stop, and tell them to look below (since the original problem is that some people didn't), and spell it exactly the same as the reference below. I understand not wanting a href, but you can still mention it in prose the old-fashioned way.

For the antecedent I'm looking at the previous subject, not the last word in the predicate.

I wasn't looking for the last word in the predicate. For the antecedent, I was looking for "3. (grammar) A word, phrase or clause referred to by a pronoun".

Meat the the sentence is what to use.

I see what you've done there: an excellent example of an unparseable sentence. ;)

If you imagine some rule where the antecedent for "it" must be the subject of the prior statement, and the subject of the prior statement is "you", then shouldn't you be asking "Is it me?!" not «"it" is "these rule?"?» ? ;)

How do you imagine the question fragment "there rules?" is the subject of the prior statement? If something other than said subject can be the antecedent, then why do you (by omission) reject the already offered antecedent of "your post"?

But enough fun.

Well, I believe the more basic problem is that "people very often don't read" (something I find completely understandable). A requirement of "looking below" certainly adds to that problem, but seems to be a secondary factor. So I'm not looking for "excellent prose" here. I want a blurb that is likely to get noticed and at least partially understood without requiring an attempt to actually read it as a sentence.

But, yes, trying to (also) convey "look out below" is certainly an excellent suggestion. In the particular case that motivated your thread, there wasn't anything "below" to look at, of course, so it isn't actually an appropriate choice yet.

But one of the main points that I believe Corion was trying to convey, was "Your post should be written in PerlMonks-approved HTML" and "The above examples are examples of PerlMonks-approved HTML". Your version does not convey that very strongly.

How about?

Use: ...
to format your post; use "PerlMonks-approved HTML" (see below).

I think that incorporates both points and does so much more clearly with close to a minimum of prose (after the "hints" are restored, of course).

Thanks for the suggestion.

- tye