In the table that illustrates how simple HTML is compared with markdown, you seem to have made an error in the HTML.
Or was that the joke?
As of now all commentards with five or more posts accepted for publication can create topics in our new El Reg forums. We have made this easier to find: the signpost link is in the secondary nav bar on the front page. At the same time we've opened simple HTML formatting to all commentards who have had five posts accepted for …
Little of both, I suspect; the author was clever enough to use < entities in place of opening angle brackets, but the CMS wasn't clever enough to notice that and not attempt to convert the ampersands, so the result was &lt; which renders as < instead of < .
Aaron Em, you guess right.
The table is for visual purposes only. Our CMS is not clever enough - or too clever - and wants to render all correctly formed html. Hence the <
And on the stupid side - table looked lovely in our CMS preview - and I was not clever enough to spot before it went live. Fixed
Everything seems eminently sensible to me, but I'm a little miffed at having to wait a bit to be able to create a topic. Even though I first posted here in '07 apparently, and have a fairly decent upvote/downvote ratio (54/4), I am not yet at 100 posts. On every web communication outlet I use, I try to live by David Byrne's mantra "when I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed". Is El Reg trying to tempt me into posting just for the sake of it, so that I can get my tally to that magical ton?
You could post something worth viewing, or 'Get a Life'. (JOKE!). Or, like me, be unemployed, and have bugger all to do at the pub. (ah...)
Nonetheless, I've upvoted you to help you achieve the coveted Holy Grail of the Sofa Potato.
(I'm at over 830 upvotes, but I wonder if there's gonna be a 'special prize' for the number of downvotes... Sarah Bee, come back, all is forgiven!)
That, and quite a lot of work places have a content proxy/filter server (aka 'nanny filter') to keep people from wasting productive work hours on failbook, including mine.
(while I'm immune to it, being the admin of said nanny filter, It does please me that not everyone wants to jump in bed with failbook's broken single sign on.)
quote: Tags: Please could we have <pre> and some way of quoting other people's posts?
i was going to put "+1 for <quote> request"
but then i realised that it is really a bbcode type tag, there isn't an equivalent html tag that could be used is there.
best i can think of is to italicise the quote.
I think, if you have to manually format your quote, that's a good way of stopping some quotetard from putting gobloads of a post's text in a quote and then just typing "me too" afterwards.
Quotes? Of course there is an HTML
<blockquote> Here is a long quotation here is a long quotation here is a long quotation here is a long quotation here is a long quotation here is a long quotation ...</blockquote>
BB code is retarded. It was before CMS systems had decent HTML sanitising. A lot of forums use WYSIWYG editors anyway. Mostly it simply replaces < with [ and has a bunch of different ways according to extension for Tables and other stuff beyond basic,
Also HTML allows for easier Copy & Paste from existing source.
>Though the conventions I would prefer are those from text email:
And the ones I would prefer are from IBM's GML which use : and . instead of < and > and here's the problem: lots of people have lots of different preferences. Anyone wanna start a count?
I'm guessing the answer will be no (and I'm fine with that), but it'd be better to make this explicit:
Can the allowed <b>, <i>, <em>, <strong> and <strike> include common attributes? For example:
<b style="color: blue;">Blue bold text</b>
<b id="myComment>link this later with #myComment</b>
Also: will the syntax be strict, accepting only "<b>" instead of "<b >"?
For the record, I *do* like the idea.
I do wish El Reg would either get all they are going to do done or stop tweaking the forums. Every time something changes I have to alter my Grease Monkey script to get things working properly in Firefox. Yes; I know Grease Monkey shouldn't be necessary, but c'est la vie. I can live with it but would just like a firm foundation to stand upon.
I'm not entirely sure all these minor tweaks are that beneficial or necessary. I do hope El Reg isn't being slowly sucked down the Web2.0 rabbit hole.
Sorry, El Reg jumped down that rabbit hole a long time ago!
That's why you're able to post a comment here instead of bashing out an email to the author like in the good ol' days. It's that wambly nambly user interaction that web 2.0 was all about.
But at least they do a good job, and don't get carried away like so many other web sites have.
OK, thanks for the features, but you can call me old-fashioned. Unless I need to add a link (which I have only found the need for ONCE) I'll stick with standard text. The reason for that is the same as why I loathe Powerpoint and WYSIWYG editing: I focus on content. The day I need embellishment is the day I evidently have no longer anything interesting to say..
So, hello gadgets, but I'll use them sparingly. Unless I want to annoy someone, of course :-)
Good to see that HTML formatting has been granted to all (mostly). I hope that the following formatting will be added to the roadmap:
• the remaining HTML phrase elements (cite, dfn, code, samp, kbd, var, abbr, acronym);
• inline quoting (the q element);
• preformatted text (the pre element);
• fixed width text (the tt element);
• small caps (sadly there is no simple HTML element that provides them; a span element with a particular style attribute would be required);
• the recommendations of the Vulture Central Humour Comprehensibility Committee, found at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/01/the_color_of_irony/ (sorry, at this time I do not meet the prerequisite for hotlinking).
Do the characters used for HTML elements count towards a post’s maximum length?
I thought the main appeal for BBCode and similar was that it's less trouble to implement safely. If you completely block HTML, and then bring back limited formating through another syntax, it's really easy to make sure you stay in control. If you allow some HTML tags, and especially if you allow attributes, then you have to be much more careful to avoid letting something harmful through.
I certainly don't mean to suggest El Reg isn't up to the job, but for something like a personal blog (if not using a pre-made blog platform) that could be a big advantage.
"HTML is the open standard of the web. Deal with it, bitches."
(Courtesy of the W3C Validator)
Line 112, Column 123: general entity "T" not defined and no default entity…inancial incentives to Verizon and AT&T in the hope of getting them to join Sp…
This is usually a cascading error caused by a an undefined entity reference or use of an unencoded ampersand (&) in an URL or body text. See the previous message for further details.
Line 192, Column 22: reference to non-existent ID "EMAIL" <h4><label for=email>Email</label></h4>
Line 198, Column 22: reference to non-existent ID "PASSWORD" <h4><label for=password>Password</label></h4>
...to be fair, I struggled a lot with ampersands in URLs until I changed my parser to catch these and swap these in and out on the fly. Avoiding them in links entirely also helps. And face it: You were asking for this, El Reg.
Yay! —HTML allowed in forum posts. It's like some kind of 1990s revival! The big question is, have I posted enough wank here, over the years, to be allowed to post a definitely not spammy link to one of my websites...?
Woot! Looks like I have, unless the preview is lying. Go me!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019