Board index » html » Formatting links

2005-11-24 04:33:00 PM
Neredbojias wrote:
...
recall coming across it in my childhood, somewhere.)
My question didn't so much have to do with 'qualm' - that I understood, as
all of the meanings are close enough. It is the 'quill' part that really
doesn't fit, as far as I can see. The least colloquial translation I can
think of is "With neither pausing to write it out, nor anticipations of
regretting his hasty reply, Mr. X quoted..." That is my best guess as to
how 'quill' should be filled in, yet the fact is that it was written down,
where it says it wasn't... See what I mean, now? That's why I asked the
question. It felt like I am missing something, and I wanted to know what I
was missing. ???
David
-

Neredbojias wrote:
...
recall coming across it in my childhood, somewhere.)
My question didn't so much have to do with 'qualm' - that I understood, as
all of the meanings are close enough. It is the 'quill' part that really
doesn't fit, as far as I can see. The least colloquial translation I can
think of is "With neither pausing to write it out, nor anticipations of
regretting his hasty reply, Mr. X quoted..." That is my best guess as to
how 'quill' should be filled in, yet the fact is that it was written down,
where it says it wasn't... See what I mean, now? That's why I asked the
question. It felt like I am missing something, and I wanted to know what I
was missing. ???
David
-

With neither quill nor qualm, David quothed:
nor doubt..." The text is "written down", yes, but not with a
"classical" writing instrument per se. Anyway, it's just an
alliterative salutation of no special significance.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
-

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

No, no. A qualm is an astringent, highly intoxicating drink.
I think you're thinking of "balm".

With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:
block attributes, doesn't it?
I may not be correct in this analysis, but if the only support you have
for your view is that the css validator doesn't validate it, that means
nothing. The w3c css validator itself is broken and frequently gives
the wrong result for what is and is not valid css.
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
-

Neredbojias wrote:
as HTML is concerned it is still an inline element.
Consider,
@media screen {a {display: block;}}
@media print {a {display: inline;}}
Same HTML. Is it a block on screen but inline when printed? Or is it
just an inline element that looks like a block on screen and inline
when printed?
CSS does not change the rules of HTML. In HTML it is forbidden to nest
a block element inside an inline element and so long as it's HTML that
doesn't change.
Steve
-

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:12:39 -0700, Neredbojias
<invalid@neredbojias.com>wrote:
property merely controls how they're displayed.
-

--
dorayme
-

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
This won't do Boji... It is beyond defence now...
Well one can always climb de fence if de person wants to.

With neither quill nor qualm, Steve Pugh quothed:
actually thought 'block' and 'inline' were css creations not html so
maybe that gives me a little more perspective regarding why css is so
obstreperous.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
-

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
-

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:14:16 -0700, Neredbojias
<invalid@neredbojias.com>wrote:
The ones relevant here are %inline; and %block;
the HTML content models defined as entities in the DTD
www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html
-

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:
like arguing politics, I suppose, and I'm not going to participate in an
epic battle over it.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
-