Journal HTML

[skot]

I'm not able to get the HTML in my journal messages to work. As a result, I have one very long paragraph in every entry. Does anyone klnow of a work around for this?
Thanks

[dharden]

Try using <br><br> where you want a paragraph break.

[skot]

Thanks, dharden. It worked! I had been trying to use the <p> function.

[sandy82]

Try using <br><br> where you want a paragraph break.

dharden, you know me and computer-related instructions. skot has the advantage on me when it comes to making paragraph breaks.

In light of my "File-downloading Instructions (by and) for the Compleat Idiot," what exactly do I type between the paragraphs? I mean: exactly. :)

I have typed:

1. paragraph's-last-word.<bk><bk>paragraph's-first-word.

2. paragraph's-last-word.<bk>

<bk>paragraph's-first-word.

3. I have also used the "[" instead of the "<".

What should I be doing?
.

[skot]

I have typed:

* * *
1. paragraph's-last-word.<bk><bk>paragraph's-first-word.

2. paragraph's-last-word.<bk>

<bk>paragraph's-first-word.
* * *

What should I be doing?
.

Sandy, it's <br>, not <bk>. And at the end of the paragraph's last word, it's </br>

[sandy82]

Many thanks, skot.

[dharden]

Sandy, it's <br>, not <bk>. And at the end of the paragraph's last word, it's </br>

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

I also tried wrapping a paragraph in <p> and </p>, viewing the entry, and then viewing the source. It appears that those tags are getting stripped out when an entry is viewed. Edit the entry, and they're there. View it, and they're not.

[sandy82]

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

Very helpful to know, dharden. Thanks. Saves time when lots of reformatting is required.

[skot]

[quote="dharden"]

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

Yes. It depends, though, on the browser you're using. Some require both so I usually include both just to be certain.

[sandy82]

Good to have both methods. The faster and the safer. Luckily for me, the faster works. It saves a great deal of time.

[dharden]

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

Yes. It depends, though, on the browser you're using. Some require both so I usually include both just to be certain.

Which ones work like that? I'm not doubting, just curious.

[skot]

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

Yes. It depends, though, on the browser you're using. Some require both so I usually include both just to be certain.

Which ones work like that? I'm not doubting, just curious.

As I understand it, it's now mostly browsers in hand helds and phones, for instance. See the articles cited below for more info. I first noticed it about 5 or 6 years ago, though, when I started getting comments from a handful of people saying that they couldn't read my webpage, although it looked fine to me in both of the major browsers of the day. After that, I just started including a close with everything and the comments stopped. Keep in mind, though, that I haven't done my own markup for several years, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_why.asp

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_syntax.asp

[sandy82]

I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same.

Yes. It depends, though, on the browser you're using. Some require both so I usually include both just to be certain.

Which ones work like that? I'm not doubting, just curious.

As I understand it, it's now mostly browsers in hand helds and phones, for instance. See the articles cited below for more info. I first noticed it about 5 or 6 years ago, though, when I started getting comments from a handful of people saying that they couldn't read my webpage, although it looked fine to me in both of the major browsers of the day. After that, I just started including a close with everything and the comments stopped. Keep in mind, though, that I haven't done my own markup for several years, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_why.asp
http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_syntax.asp

As I've said many times, I am a computer illiterate and I don't catch a lot of the nuance. Here's what I gather from the exchange above. At Item 2, skot made a statement. It was questioned by dharden at Item 3. At Item 4, skot made another statement.

It seems to me, as a computer illiterate, that skot's first statement doesn't jibe with his second statement. The first contains no exceptions or qualifying comments. It looks like a statement of fact.

The second statement looks different. It has lots of qualifying language. I don't know how many people use hand-helds and cell phones to read Diary entries, but I bet the number is small. I may be wrong but, as a computer illiterate, I don't see that most of skot's second reply responds to anything. He makes himself a lot of wiggle room. He doesn't admit that he could have misled anybody, and he doesn't admit to making a mistake.

His second statement seems to shoot away most of his first statement, without ever saying there was a problem in the first statement.

Am I reading this right? I don't know much about the topic. Can anyone else provide any help here?
.

[davelowe1977]

Sandy,
As I understand it, usually with html, commands are started, for example, thus: <body> and ended thus: </body>

I would suggest that paragraphing is no different. Try the following:-

<br>
Paragraph text
.
.
.
blah blah
last text in paragraph
</br>

<br>
Next paragraph
</br>


Note: untested(!)

[sandy82]

Dave,

Thanks for the advice. I was interested in dharden's findings because nobody on the site is more reliable, dedicated, helpful, and truthful to everyone--present company excluded, of course. :wink:

The reason for my interest is that the use of one symbol saves a lot of time if one is reformatting 50 or 100 or more Journal entries. With one symbol, it's a matter of clicking on the proper space and then using Alt+E+P or a simple home-made macro. Point and shoot, as it were.

I wish there were other readily available codes, such as "center," etc., for the Journals. Maybe someone will discover them.

BTW, I like "blah, blah"! That's the same short version I use when somebody has nothing except a tiresome story that begins "I was born." Admittedly, with some people even that statement can be a bone of contention, but with most it's hardly noteworthy. In New York City, "blah, blah" is being overtaken by "yadda, yadda." Different strokes, different pedigree.

Thanks again for your help. Much appreciated!

[skot]

It seems to me, as a computer illiterate, that skot's first statement doesn't jibe with his second statement. The first contains no exceptions or qualifying comments. It looks like a statement of fact.

The second statement looks different. It has lots of qualifying language. I don't know how many people use hand-helds and cell phones to read Diary entries, but I bet the number is small. I may be wrong but, as a computer illiterate, I don't see that most of skot's second reply responds to anything. He makes himself a lot of wiggle room. He doesn't admit that he could have misled anybody, and he doesn't admit to making a mistake.

His second statement seems to shoot away most of his first statement, without ever saying there was a problem in the first statement.

LOL - I knew I was taking a risk trying to help you. Actually, although I've been expecting you post something like this, I was kinda hoping that you would let me down. If you didn't let me down, I was hoping your zing would at least be something smart and good. I'm doubly disappointed!

Still, I would be honored if you would cut and paste this and then post it again in your next message - for posterity so it doesn't somehow disappear. I always get a chuckle when you do that, and it would make me feel ever so important if you did it for me, just this once.

Cheers, Sandy.

[sandy82]

It seems to me, as a computer illiterate, that skot's first statement doesn't jibe with his second statement. The first contains no exceptions or qualifying comments. It looks like a statement of fact.

The second statement looks different. It has lots of qualifying language. I don't know how many people use hand-helds and cell phones to read Diary entries, but I bet the number is small. I may be wrong but, as a computer illiterate, I don't see that most of skot's second reply responds to anything. He makes himself a lot of wiggle room. He doesn't admit that he could have misled anybody, and he doesn't admit to making a mistake.

His second statement seems to shoot away most of his first statement, without ever saying there was a problem in the first statement.

Am I reading this right? I don't know much about the topic. Can anyone else provide any help here?
(Paragraph above omitted by skot in his "editing.")

LOL - I knew I was taking a risk trying to help you. Actually, although I've been expecting you post something like this, I was kinda hoping that you would let me down. If you didn't let me down, I was hoping your zing would at least be something smart and good. I'm doubly disappointed!

Still, I would be honored if you would cut and paste this and then post it again in your next message - for posterity so it doesn't somehow disappear. I always get a chuckle when you do that, and it would make me feel ever so important if you did it for me, just this once.

Cheers, Sandy.

LOL, skot, I am delighted to oblige you in your request for a copy that you can't change. You have placed yourself in the company of Mortal and other such visitors to the site. As you may know, Mortal used to change his posts after people had responded to them. Jack caught him once. Who will catch you? I ask that question based on the behavior you've shown here.

I am surprised that you would purposely misstate the facts. You weren't helping me during any of the exchanges given above. You provided me an answer earlier, and I thanked you for it. Risk? No risk at all.

The risk came when I read your two answers to dharden. The first was inaccurate, and the second was self-serving. The best possible gloss on the first was your own negligence. Sadly, negligence is not available as an excuse for your second answer. There, you knew better. That was a willful effort to obscure the errors in the first answer. You apparently found those errors when you did some quick research to answer dharden's question. You intentionally glossed over your inadequacies.

I am disheartened, but not surprised that you derived a measure of hostility from being read too closely to suit your purposes. What sounds good on the surface often has no foundation.

Let's review the bidding. You gave me adequate information. I thanked you. Dharden's method was easier to use because it required only one symbol. Still, your response to me was straightforward. I had no trouble with it. I expressed none.

Then dharden made the comment: "I did a small test in my journal, and it appears that <br> and </br> are treated the same."

Your reply to dharden was: "Yes. It depends, though, on the browser you're using. Some require both so I usually include both just to be certain."

Then, dharden asked you a question: "Which ones work like that? I'm not doubting, just curious."

Your entire exchange on the relative merits here was with dharden.

When asked that question, you gave the following "reply". I use the quotation marks because you didn't really reply in any helpful or meaningful way. Here's what you said, with some very quick back-pedaling:

"As I understand it, it's now mostly browsers in hand helds and phones, for instance. See the articles cited below for more info. I first noticed it about 5 or 6 years ago, though, when I started getting comments from a handful of people saying that they couldn't read my webpage, although it looked fine to me in both of the major browsers of the day. After that, I just started including a close with everything and the comments stopped. Keep in mind, though, that I haven't done my own markup for several years, so take what I say with a grain of salt."

I believe in straight answers. You didn't give one. You did almost everything you could to avoid one. I called attention above to your carefully fashioned paragraph that talked about hand-helds, phones, standards of 5-6 years ago, a handful of people that couldn't read your website 5-6 years ago. And after previously giving dharden an unqualified answer, you then added a generalized caution/disclaimer that was wholly lacking before: "take what I say with a grain of salt."

Stripped to its essentials, that piece of verbiage leaves a careful reader goggle-eyed. Here's what you really said:

<<The browsers I mentioned earlier are used in handhelds and phones, neither of which are generally used to read material like diaries. The explanation I gave you before is 5-6 years out of date. Since I don't do markups anymore, don't rely on information I give you on this topic.>>

Those are the facts as you purport to give the facts. I have no independent knowledge, but I do know how to strip away self-serving language. I see enough of it. I can't even say that the stripped-down language is reliable. You're not establishing a very good reputation.

If that weren't enough, you then proceeded to mischaracterize the entire exchange. You weren't helping me. You had already given me information for which I had thanked you. You were giving information--erroneous as it turned out--to dharden.

Facts can be drudgery, skot. Without them, you're not reliable. Entertaining perhaps. Truthful, no. I see no admission of a mistake here. I see no apology to dharden. I see no apology to me for at least one bald misstatement.

I don't expect an apology. I can't speak for dharden, but I'm sure it would be considered unnecessary at best.

I'm also curious about the hostility. I pointed out shortcomings in your dealings with dharden, not with me. I commented on the quality of your answers. I did not mention any of your personal ethics because I haven't seen any. You may have some ethical standards, but none of us really knows you yet. You are gradually making yourself known now. I am left with the impression of a person who can't stand to be wrong...or, worse, shown to be wrong. The near-impossible? Admitting an error and expressing genuine regret. There are clinical names for such behavior. I won't apply any until I'm reasonably sure which is the most appropriate for you.

Do you want to continue down this path? You are glib, and you obviously have a proclivity for doing whatever comes naturally or unnaturally, as the case may be. I have an attachment to facts. You have already overstepped the line several times, and you have been a topic of conversation at various levels among various people.

Glib and glossy rhetoric won't get you very far. You remind some people of MikeWulf. That means you start out with some strikes against you.

You might want to lay out how you intend to proceed from here. You may even convince us that you are MikeWulf. It wouldn't take much more.

In this particular instance, it's your call. In others it may not be. It's a drag to follow you around and make sure you've played it straight with people. I would prefer not to have to do that--but if necessary, that's that.

I see no need to go into the frantic way you composed your reply to dharden, starting before 7:00 am on a Sunday morning. I found it interesting. You're not as laid-back as you'd like to appear.

Met vriendelijke groeten!

[EMG]

I think it's time to declare this topic dead as I don't see anything here that is helping with the site in any way.