|
1171. CalGal - 2/9/2000 4:37:44 PM this is white no quotes with "so instead of blah blah"
this is white no quotes withe "blah blah"
this is white no quotes withe "blah blah blah"
Ah! Blah blah and blah blah blah give the same color.
this is white no quotes withe "serendipty"
this is white no quotes withe "dummy text"
1172. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 4:46:07 PM Check the source. If there's no space between the bungled tag and the following text, there's no inadvertant tag, apparently.
testingone
testingtwo
testing three
testing four
testingfive
testing six
test ingseven
test ingeight 1173. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 4:51:47 PM Oops
testingone
testingtwo
testingthree
testingfour
testingfive
testingsix
testingseven
testingeight
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing 1174. CalGal - 2/9/2000 4:55:25 PM Oh, I see. Very odd. I wonder how it resolves the colors? I'll have to read up. 1175. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 4:57:18 PM testingone
testingtwo
testingthree
testingfour
testingfive
testingsix
testingseven
testingeight
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing
testing
Actually, it's the length of what's left attached to the bungled tag that affect the color, I guess. 1176. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 4:58:07 PM And now unless i feel scientific again, I'm really done. 1177. CalGal - 2/9/2000 5:00:35 PM Actually, it's the length of what's left attached to the bungled tag that affect the color, I guess.
Yeah, that's what I noticed in your tests as well. You have more patience than I do--once I know what the problem is, I start to yawn. Testing ain't my bag. 1178. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/9/2000 7:02:52 PM To further confuse the matter, I'm going to move the off-topic Quiz thread posts over here.
Who'da thunk a mere parentheses substituted for an angle bracket could cause all this? 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:56:46 PM Hmm. 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:57:17 PM
Yes, and the numbers have nothing to do with the color value produced. 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:58:10 PM Should have done all that in Test, sorry. Feel free to delete. 1179. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/9/2000 3:30:47 PM I can't figure that one out at all. I forgot to close the white font in my first post, but it didn't even appear (though it shows up in the page code). Then, instead of everything becoming white, it became blue.
At least, that's what I see on my screen. 1179. CalGal - 2/9/2000 3:33:34 PM test 1179. CalGal - 2/9/2000 3:33:55 PM test again 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:45:21 PM It looks as though the text you intended to be whited out was instead interpreted as some form of command. 1179. CalGal - 2/9/2000 3:48:05 PM I thought at first it was CMBoyce's blue font above and that he'd used the black font to change it, but that wasn't it. 1179. CalGal - 2/9/2000 3:50:13 PM Okay, Irv had < font color=white).......
And a hell of a lot afterwards would be processed as part of a faulty tag. I'm not sure why the blue yet, but that's the start of the problem. 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:55:27 PM Can we duplicate it?
1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:55:38 PM Well? 1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:55:52 PM
1179. Angel-Five - 2/9/2000 3:56:32 PM and
1180. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/9/2000 9:24:23 PM Oops, I just discovered that 12 of the posts I thought I'd moved over here never made it.
Not a lot of content lost (not any, really). Sorry A5 and CalGal. Uh, my finger slipped. It is part of the conspiracy. And I refuse to be held accountable. If you don't like that, I'll kick your ass. 1181. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/9/2000 9:27:54 PM Yikes, the missing posts mysteriously reappeared.
Oh well. It was fun to think I was part of the conspiracy there for a minute. 1182. Dusty - 2/9/2000 11:32:25 PM Holy cow, more action in here than we've seen in a long, time, and I missed it.
1183. janjon - 2/10/2000 2:41:13 AM If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.
So, what I am trying to link is:
The Mote 1184. janjon - 2/10/2000 2:42:58 AM Well, now look at that. Not the same as my first disaster over in Technical, but a disaster nevertheless.
Any suggestions?
(um, please - refrain from the obvious ones as to telling me where I should go....) 1185. CalGal - 2/10/2000 2:43:32 AM Very good!
The only thing wrong with your Times post was that you left off the other quote after target="new
This creates much weirdness--far out of proportion to the type of mistake. It's actually better to leave off both quotes than just one. 1186. CalGal - 2/10/2000 2:44:04 AM WHy is that one a disaster? Unless you weren't trying to link in the Mote? 1187. janjon - 2/10/2000 2:49:52 AM No, I was trying to link in the NY times article. What I did was type in the The Mote
Arrggh. All my residual insecurities about my technical deficiencies have arisen yet again! 1188. janjon - 2/10/2000 2:51:30 AM wait a minute. Forgive me for creating all of this, but I didn't type in all the stuff you are supposed to that time. How did it nevertheless link to The Mote? 1189. janjon - 2/10/2000 2:54:31 AM Let me go at it this way.
Just where does the http etc. for the (in this case) article I was trying to link go? Does it replace the stuff from 207 through asp" or does it replace the words The Mote?
I hope that is clear, but it probably isn't. 1190. CalGal - 2/10/2000 2:56:31 AM Persevere, JanJon. I shall see you through this.
Your original link was missing a quote after new.
<a href="http://www.nyt.com/library/politics/camp/021000wh-clinton.html" target="new>
But the followup had the opposite problem--one too many quotes.
<a href=""http://www.nyt.com/library/politics/camp/021000wh-clinton.html" target="new">
Note the double quotes before http. Not good. Take one out.
You also want to change the text so it doesn't say "The Mote"
|
