PreFormatting

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re: PreFormatting by tye (Sage) on Feb 15, 2001 at 06:39 UTC
I think this is a fine idea if `<PRE>` tags are left as-is in nodes that also contain `<code>` tags. I still reserve the right to downvote nodes that have long lines inside of `<PRE>` tags, but not all non-text information belongs in `<code>` tags. - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: (tye)Re: PreFormatting by PsychoSpunk (Hermit) on Feb 15, 2001 at 12:14 UTC
I still reserve the right to choose delete on Nodes to Consider for nodes that have pre tags that cause the page to scroll 5 screens wide. ALL HAIL BRAK!!!	[reply]
Re: PreFormatting by tadman (Prior) on Feb 15, 2001 at 10:11 UTC
Using <PRE> is a natural thing to do, especially if you don't realize the wondrous power of the PerlMonks <CODE> tag and how different it is from the regular HTML equivalent. I certainly didn't expect it to work the way it does. It's completely counterintuitive. It might be advisable to staple a handy "PerlMonks-HTML" reference chart to the bottom of the composition window. There's a whole lot of space there considering how long the right sidebar trails on. That should be the easiest to implement, by far.	[reply]
Re: PreFormatting by TStanley (Canon) on Feb 15, 2001 at 01:06 UTC
I know this would end up heaping more work upon vroom, but this is an excellent idea, and overall, would cut down the number of nodes that have to be edited because of someone not using < CODE> tags TStanley In the end, there can be only one!	[reply]
Re: Re: PreFormatting by Lexicon (Chaplain) on Feb 15, 2001 at 05:53 UTC
It wouldn't be that hard probably. vroom could just remove <PRE> from the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Then they would be automagically deleted at least. It would probably be a good idea anyway to extend the filtering functionality to give a warning about the use of unapproved tags, instead of just deleting them without explanation. -Lexicon	[reply]