Talk:HTML element - Knowledge (XXG)

2658:. That is not my intent. The consistency I was trying to apply to this article was what I believed to have been the majority implicit consensus within the article. I considered the syntax highlighting used in the article to have been a constructive improvement to the article. If I had not, I would have not proceeded with doing so; I would have probably reverted at least most of the inline syntax highlighting, just as I suspect you would have done were you in my situation. Perhaps it is just incompetence on my part, but I genuinely do not understand how the changes being discussed contravene current policies and guidelines or otherwise damage the encyclopedia. Hopefully, that will be elucidated through further discussion; regardless, I will abide by the consensus.Thank you for your time and for giving this contested issue the opportunity to be discussed. I look forward to further input from others, whether here, on my talk page, or at 2625:) onto contexts for which was not designed and is very unhelpful. There is no encyclopedic purpose to this colorization when applied to individual terms (elements, attributes) of code in running text; WP has no interest of any kind in trying to impress upon readers that "elements are green" or "attributes are grey", etc. It's meaningless, arbitrary noise, that sharply conflicts with our already barely-tolerated use of a few key colors to indicate links of various sorts. Per the earlier part of this thread, I've raised the issue at the MoS talk page, since this really isn't an article-specific matter, and I didn't actually know until someone told me above that it was all imposed by a single editor, and isn't the result of general editorial "creep" toward colorization. What you're doing is contested; I just haven't bothered to do the R in 1919:(yet another revert — none of these cited reverts are changing varierties of English in the article, BTW) appears to have 6 "behavior", no "behaviour", 5 "color", no "colour", 3 forms of "center", and no forms of "centre" (thus, AFAICT, entirely American). (I'm sure I could find other revisions from years ago that have only British spelling of these words, although I didn't come across any in the handful of revisions I checked. The point is, there has been a lot of back and forth regarding spelling with little effort put forth to keep the article consistent.) As for showing "that the first non-stub version was clearly in US English", as requested by 2236:, I think that the clear visual markers draw attention in ways useful to reading without being visually disruptive; that inconsistent syntax highlighting is far more confusing, especially for those unfamiliar with code and syntax highlighting; and that highlighting all applicable code syntax has a very important point, namely to apply the benefits that syntax highlighting provides and to conform all code within the article to a consistent style.I do not think that the syntax highlighting usage in this article is a violation of 2232:), I think that highlighting all highlightable code syntax in this article ensures clear consistency within the article so long as we highlight syntax within code blocks. This, I believe, helps readers understand the relationship between the inline code within prose and the code in nearby code blocks; and provides clear visual markers for when a given code fragment is being mentioned, which assists readers with quickly locating information while skimming the text. Contrary to your concern about this 2245:(I do not know if they do). The only situation I can imagine in which inline syntax highlighting would be a detriment to blind readers is if the screen reader output is garbled or disruptive, but that then sounds like a problem with the extension itself and not just its implementation here. As for whether the colors themselves are sufficiently contrasting, that is beyond the scope of this discussion unless part of the discussion here is whether 602: 565: 21: 1820:

is to pick a variety of English and stick with it. AFAICT this article has had mixed spelling (color/colour, etc.) for quite a while, and it was only very recently that editors have tried to standardize it to one variety (and then the other). (Although that may also have been done before, years ago, and the change didn't stick.) In other words, I don't think established convention can be the controlling factor here. OTOH,

198: 1911:. In that version, there are (by my count) 9 instances of "behavior" (including a section heading) and 3 of "behaviour"; 5 "color" (not counting mentions of the "color" HTML attribute) and 3 "colour"; 3 forms of the word "center" (not counting mentions of the "center" element) and no forms of the word "centre". Similar results can be found in many other revisions going back at least 2 years. For example, Andy Dingley's 473: 442: 541: 121: 1053:. The table doesn't need to exist, the information in the table just needs to be available on the multitude of different pages (each row in the table has its own page on MDN). I don't see any of the formatting and the tool doesn't find any of the exact wording on w3schools of which the content there is common knowledge to anyone in the HTML world and the source upon which it is defined (the legal 100: 69: 883: 2037:. As long as it works properly (and it does have bugs, though I don't know if any are affecting this particular article), this is arguably helpful, in that it can make complex code easier to understand for the reader. (Honestly, I'd like to see an accessibility analysis of the color choices, but I presume on good faith that one has been done at some point.) 2457:; it served the same function as I described above and elsewhere, just far more haphazardly, and that now-largely-resolved inconsistency was perhaps the most cogent justification for concerns about confusing, distracting, and misleading readers. That is why I began editing.I understand that you believe that syntax highlighting is only appropriate for 1471: 1932:

what the style should be", AnAwesomeArticleEditor addressed that in his very first post in this discussion: HTML itself prefers American spelling over British. You may not feel that it's a very compelling argument, but in the light of all other evidence, it does seem to me to aid in tipping the scales toward American spelling.) -

2505:

purpose in improving reader comprehension and reducing ambiguity, especially for those unfamiliar with coding. Specifically, it ensures clear consistency, which prevents confusion resulting from inconsistent formatting and presentation. Inline syntax highlighting also helps reinforce the relationship

2240:

because I think the coloring serves a clear function for readers, as described above. Even partially or fully color-blind readers can potentially benefit from the highlighting because the boldfacing provides a visual indicator of some syntax regardless of coloring. Syntax highlighting is specifically

1380:

Regardless of the order in which these terms appear in whatever version of whichever spec we're looking at, virtually everyone knows these as description lists (if not definition lists, which seems to be deprecated/abandoned terminology), and it corresponds to the names of the elements. Maybe they'll

1026:

does not attribute any source, so if that table does exist on developer.mozilla.org under an attribution-required license, then w3schools.com has an unauthorized copy. It looks to me like the table is original to w3schools.com and is fully copyrighted by them. Though the content concerns the HTML 5

2620:

matter more than anything else. You're attempting to apply a "consistency" you made up out of nowhere, which directly conflicts with much more important article-writing consistency rules and practices we've been using for 17+ years, all on the basis of trying to impose a colorization scheme intended

2481:

article and others). Moreover, I think such formatting is entirely encyclopedic and does not detract from Knowledge (XXG)'s status as one. Nonetheless, if there is clear consensus against the syntax highlighting I have implemented on this article and elsewhere, I will proceed to revert my changes to

1946:

Thanks for looking into the matter, and that is much more helpful than the OP which is definitely not the way to establish a style. What HTML prefers would be largely irrelevant if the article used UK spellings consistently. It is ok to change a style where the subject matter warrants such a change,

1931:

was the first major expansion of the article beyond a stub; it contains no "behavior" nor "behaviour", 1 "color", no "colour", 4 forms of "center", and none of "centre". If someone has other ideas for American–British differences to look for, go for it. (And finally, Johnuniq, regarding " a case for

1819:

doesn't magically resolve disputes. If it did, this would already be resolved. AFAICT, ENGVAR does not recommend using RfC's in place of normal talk page discussion, and that's what we are trying to do here. As for the characterization that "a change is wanted", the only "change" being "wanted" here

1503:

This article needs a lot of work. A large portion of it is written like a tech manual - so please see what Knowledge (XXG) is not. There is no intro. And this article is for writing about the topic based on sources. For the most part I don't see this happening here. Please, bring this into agreement

2593:

Hopefully, for anyone reading, that TL;DR was not too long to be worth reading; it is reduced by roughly 60%. If it still is for anyone, then I guess just skim the TL;DR? I can only compress and omit so much before even the most important points are lost and it comes across as uncivilly curt, and I

2590:

use of code markup to the extent possible given the extension limitations.I understand your position and believe I also understand why you maintain it. It is both reasonable and defensible. However, I think that in this case and in cases like it, more permissive usage of syntax highlighting is due.

2197:, so I again apologize for the length. Given that the discussion here is about this particular article, however, I think it is due to provide a full explanation of my rationale and perspective for the edits I made here. I only need to do this once, after all. Regardless, a (frustratingly truncated) 2064:

templates) around every single thing, in mid-sentence, where they can get it to do anything. This "colorize everything! woo hoo!" approach is causing distracting and potentially confusing outbursts of pointless color all over the place, and even producing sentences with grossly inconsistent markup,

1606:

At the risk of being a "me too" I "third" it. The article then goes on to talk about "closing tags" on elements. If we consider elements to exist only post-parse there's no reason to consider an element to have a closing tag. If we instead consider an element the start tag, the content, and the end

1072:

Copyright only attaches to the exact words used to express an idea, not to the idea itself. So if we agree that the specific words that w3schools.com put into their table were written by them, then the copyright on that table text belongs to w3schools. It looks like w3schools does not use an open

2309:

both of those in my most recent reply to you on my talk page. I believe the response to this should be to address these glaring problems in the syntax highlighting extension, however, and not to roll back inline syntax highlighting to its previously inconsistent application simply because of these

2346:

inconsistent, likely due to haphazard insertions from various editors over time who never checked the prevailing style in the article or bothered to address it. Not only is syntax highlighting inconsistent (some complex inline code was not highlighted), but code elements and attributes themselves

2227:

purpose that assists reader comprehension and reduces ambiguity. This is particularly so for readers who are completely unfamiliar with basic programming, such as those likely to encounter this article.Specifically, beyond the general benefits of syntax highlighting (some of which are detailed in

1879:

You are misrepresenting my argument. I said that was only one of the factors. The other, more important factor, is HTML's preference for American English. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and put back the American English notice on the talk page, because that seems to be what the consensus supports.

1638:

seem to be moving this article away from being a description of HTML elements, to being a list of all HTML tags. I see this as a very bad move. We do not need such a list: it is less encyclopedic and also duplicates far better primary sources already out there, such as the W3C and innumerable web

2514:

because it is functional and not merely decorative. Color-blind readers can even benefit from the boldfacing implemented in syntax highlighting and, since this is a strictly visual aid, it will probably not impact blind readers. If it does, it may even be beneficial by specifying the programming

2799:

I saw that Reference 25 does not have the source linked to the text . I have question about where the anchor element definition (source with directing to 'inline elements' ] came from. Also, for Reference 60's source , the hyperlink brings me to a page where page is not found ]. Reference 58's

2519:

do not output garbled or disruptive renderings of the highlighted code. Regardless, all of this seems to be more so an issue beyond the scope of this discussion, since it's more about the extension itself and not just its implementation in this article. I do not understand the relevance of

1205:), the word "introduces" was replaced by "represents", and so it took on the present wording at that point. So it's not that it was "called an association list in early versions of HTML5" - it always has been called an association list in those versions of HTML5 that are readily available. 219: 2476:

you do and consider that rationale to be both reasonable and defensible. However, I support more permissive usage so long as there is a justified rationale for doing so within a particular case or context. I think that such a rationale is available for this article (and for the

2397:

s. I addressed all these issues and now, were all the syntax highlighting I added reverted, it would be a simple task that can largely be done with simple string substitutions, which was impossible before. To see the full extent of my changes, see the following two diff groups:

1177:

says "The dl element represents an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list)", so it doesn't support the claim for early versions, nor does it imply that the structure is termed a description list in preference to an association list.

1393:

someday, but I doubt it. :-) Changed "or" to "a.k.a.", since "or" can be ambiguous in such constructions (implying two different things instead of two names for the same thing). Not anticipating an objection, I stuck that in, with some more consistent citation formatting.

1691:

The problem is, if we're going to, say, warn editors against adding unnecessary information to the article, there should be a clear, logical guideline for them to follow. It seems that "theoretically" one could be promulgated in this case, it just hasn't been (AFAIK). -

717:

I put in a more self-explanatory hatnote. There should be one because if you are search for the article on the chemical and type "nobr" instead of "NOBr" (the chemical formula for nitrosyl bromide) you end up on this page instead of the one you were looking for. --

2570:. As can be clearly seen, inline syntax highlighting was already inconsistently used in the article; in fact, all coding in the article was inconsistently formatted in nearly half a dozen different ways. I fixed all this by enforcing what I believed was 2253:'s own syntax highlighting library is sufficiently compliant with the English Knowledge (XXG)'s accessibility guidelines. If so, then that may have project-wide implications for modifications and reversions of the extension's use as a violation of 1824:

says, "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." In that case, it would be American English, since

1672:

Being an encyclopedic article on the concept of the element, rather than duplicating any number of pre-existing sites by just listing tags, with no discussion of their meaning. The start of this article is useful, almost everything after

1847:

Please just make the case to show that there is no established style, then make a case for what the style should be. If there is no agreement on the first point, the second is not relevant until a wider discussion (RfC) is underway.

2422:

syntax highlighting, or at least all inline syntax highlighting, but it was not clear to me whether that was the majority position in the implicit consensus. I judged that it was not, so I proceeded with my edits.In my opinion, I

858:

http://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DHTML_element%26oldid%3D614074417&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3schools.com%2Ftags%2Fdefault.asp&minwords=2&minchars=13

2898:

W3C and WHATWG had dueling specs for some time but since 2019 W3C has ceded the matter to WHATWG, the body behind the de facto HTML Living Standard. This page has since encountered very serious rot; for example the <menu:

2142:

any of those edits, or discuss any of them with Nøkkenbuer? Because otherwise you're just asking no one in particular to do nothing in particular, and I don't think much is going to result from your comment. -

2169:

it here, might as well let the discussion play out. For all I know, consensus may say "Oh, we really want syntax highlighting applied as much as possible." Wouldn't bet on it, but there's no real hurry.

827:

If tags from 'obscure' specifications/drafts are to be listed as well, then there are a lot of missing elements: BANNER, TAB, FIG, OVERLAY, MATH, NOTE, FN (from HTML 3.0), DI (from XHTML 2.0), ... --

1336:). But we shouldn't need an archive site: W3C have permalinks to all but the "Nightly editors draft" pages, and I gave some above. They're the ones with dates (formatted CCYYMMDD) in the URLs, like 1201:) says "The dl element introduces an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list)" - that is, the word "unordered" was removed; and in the version after that ( 1549:"Elements" and "tags" are terms that are widely confused. HTML documents contain tags, but do not contain the elements. The elements are only generated after the parsing step, from these tags. 243: 2900:

element has been marked deprecated for a long time, and the page makes frequent mention of the outdated W3C spec as current. This has a very negative impact on Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility.

383: 1784:, we should pick one variant and stick with it. There is an actual argument (whatever you think of it) for using American spelling; is there an actual argument for using British spelling? - 1591: 1915:(also a revert) has 2 "behavior" (again, including section heading), 14 "behaviour", 3 "color", 3 "colour", 2 forms of "center", and 1 form of "centre". Even farher back, your (Johnuniq) 2926: 2389:, and still others without any formatting at all. Moreover, some of the wikitext source, particularly regarding curly brackets in CSS code, was needlessly verbose due to the use of 2026:

are groups within the HTML DTD that group elements as being either "block-level" or "inline".' It's unobtrusive, helpful, and what W3C and WHATWG actually recommend and intend.

2986: 2966: 300: 238: 1987:, like all professional-grade, formal-writing style guides, is dead-set against introducing extraneous stylization of any kind, and is minimalist for good reasons (especially 1002:, which is a compatible license). Since this information can't be copyrighted as it is already released under an open use (albeit attribution) license, there is no CV here. — 171: 2506:

between the prose and the code blocks it wraps, and the clear visual display assists readers with quickly finding information when skimming the text. Thus, I think it is not

2241:

a benefit as a visual aid, so it is irrelevant to blind readers, who are unaffected if even they do not benefit from the programming language specifications being read by

1716:

I think we should use American English spellings throughout this article, because HTML uses American English (specifically the "color" attribute"). It looks silly to see

2936: 161: 1590:

I second that. This dubious claim has to be either properly sourced oder removed. It confuses users who wish to understand the difference between tags and elements.

1430:

The new layout tags in HTML5 are not present, nor are any other new HTML5 tags. Could someone please find and add them, or provide a reason why they are not here?

1197:, it says "The dl element introduces an unordered association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list)"; the next published version ( 2941: 2510:; if anything, it is the contrary, especially when compared to the previously inconsistent state of the article. Syntax highlighting in this way does not violate 1101:

W3schools shouldn't be used as any sort of source, they're just too regularly inaccurate. Also there's no need for any source here other than the canonical W3C.

137: 2093:

for its own sake and needs to be undone. The point of syntax highlighting is to make syntax in blocks of code easy to parse; it is not a replacement for basic

531: 2223:

guidelines, I think that syntax highlighting—at least, as implemented within this article, both inline and within code blocks—is not that because it serves a

2726:, something (reportedly) needs to be done to that template to fix this problem; then the "correct" wiki markup can be reintroduced throughout the article. - 1888: 1769: 1731: 1486: 1456: 2262: 2258: 1173:) from thirteen months ago. The phrase "and called an association list in early versions of HTML5" which was added to the parenthesis is troubling me. The 2981: 2951: 2931: 579: 521: 345: 2257:

rather than it just being problematic in this article. Similarly, I think that inline syntax highlighting like in this article is fully compliant with

2961: 2591:

Regardless, I will abide by whatever consensus (if any) results from these discussions to the extent required by that consensus. Thanks for your time.

903:. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out 555: 970:

I'll also note that the list is redundant with the rest of the article, which already lists all elements, sorted into sections with explanations. --

184: 128: 105: 2305:, which is inexplicable to me; and that the latter extension does not competently highlight certain code fragments, such as tagless attributes. I 1298:"Troubling" seems a bit hyperbolic. There's probably an easy way, e.g. with Archive.org, to dig up old versions of HTML5. The present version of 497: 319: 1677:(with a few exceptions) is just listcruft. I'm not averse to such a slab of repeated, unsourced listery, but it doesn't belong in this article. 1907:: Really? OK… consider the last version of the article attributed to you in the page history (as you reverted simple vandalism/test-editing): 897: 291: 408: 1780:

FWIW, I, too, am interested in whether there is any argument at all for using British English, other than personal preference. According to

886:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge (XXG) is a

653: 2007:); we don't even permit more than a few prescribed uses of boldface, and we avoid many text effect entirely, like underlining. (See also 922: 272: 2946: 2675: 2603: 2487: 1614: 1574: 2976: 2956: 2449:

is derived). Even before I began editing this article, however, I did not consider the inline syntax highlighting to have been merely

1639:

tutorials (of varying quality). More importantly though, it dilutes the quality of this important article, which is on the concept of

1022:, I don't see where on developer.mozilla.org for example the phrase "Defines a comment" (from the first line of the table) appears. 480: 447: 2644: 2181: 2109: 1595: 1406: 1314: 1170: 1131: 2659: 2630: 2162: 574: 550: 456: 452: 1027:

standard, just because that standard or its official documentation has a copyleft license doesn't mean any given book or web page

742:

Hitting CTRL+++++... to increase the text size in one's Firefox 22 browser causes some lines to overprint the box at the right...

2567: 2563: 2403: 2399: 2306: 1452: 2996: 2663: 2559: 2555: 2533: 2335: 2327: 2323: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1862:@dcljr - if you can show that the first non-stub version was clearly in US English, then I'm happy to go with that, per ENGVAR. 364: 1050: 914: 904: 329: 210: 80: 2991: 2971: 253: 2330:, which is the live version of this article as of this publication. As can be clearly seen, inline syntax highlighting was 2903:

I propose an incremental, section-by-section update of this page from the historical W3C spec to the current WHATWG spec.

1928: 777:... If you've accidently done that and want to reset it to the "normal" font size so it fixes those issues, simply press 2578:. It was either that or remove all syntax highlighting, or at least inline syntax highlighting, which seemed to me to be 956:. There were other unrelated edits clobbered when this removal was reverting, so I'm restoring the previous version. -- 374: 136:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

50: 2562:(which is currently the live version) and review the totality of my edits on this article with these two diff groups: 1881: 1762: 1724: 1479: 1448: 1212:

An association list (or description list) consisting of name–value groups (known as a definition list prior to HTML5).

619: 339: 46: 2554:. I think this can be better resolved by addressing those limitations than by reverting its use. Please compare the 1031:

HTML 5 must also have a copyleft license. That would only be true in the case of substantial verbatim copying. --

1865:

What I'm not happy about is edit-warring across ENGVAR, just because, "I think it's silly to use British English".

1174: 832: 2497:

is generally inappropriate, but I think that is not the case here, especially since I do not think this is merely

1054: 2314:

more internally consistent article version.On the latter point, and this is where this reply is most relevant to

1527:

I added a new section to the article entitled "Various elements". Feel free to revert if this is not acceptable.

1234: 401: 2617: 628: 2825: 2723: 2059: 657: 310: 86: 1618: 1578: 1190: 996: 2671: 2599: 2539: 2434: 2300: 2280: 2248: 2229: 2158: 2089:

elements ...' This is not helpful to any readers, and is not an encyclopedic approach. It's just haphazard

2043: 2032: 1202: 2406:.Lastly, despite the frankly perplexing state of the article before I arrived, my edits were an attempt at 1610: 1570: 1444: 2749: 2745: 2719: 2575: 2415: 1870: 1752: 1682: 1648: 1106: 1049:

That's the whole point, it is not suppose to be verbatim "Defines a comment", that would be my summary of

700: 493: 54: 2908: 2805: 2785: 2641: 2209: 2178: 2106: 1532: 1513: 1403: 1311: 1164: 1128: 926: 828: 496:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2800:

source hyperlink has the same error as Reference 60's source hyperlink ]. Is this suppose to be normal?

2571: 2411: 1555:

I really do not ever hear that. Please source that or delete. Every source I found talks the opposite:

1924: 1826: 677: 2883: 910: 229: 68: 2872: 2712: 2040:

However, someone(s) since then have done something not helpful at all: they've gone around and put

1356: 1288: 1198: 1193:

both use the same wording again. If we go right back to the earliest published versions of HTML 5,

2694:

A whitespace problem has existed in this article for an indeterminate amount of time (mostly from

1816: 1798: 1229: 1182: 1956: 1853: 1806: 950:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HTML_element&oldid=614074417#List_of_all_HTML_elements

634: 2667: 2595: 2127: 1185:

says exactly the same thing. It's no different in HTML 5.1: the latest published version of the

671:. There is no relationship between these two subjects (as far as I can tell). I'm removing it. 2753: 1988: 1920: 1866: 1830: 1748: 1678: 1644: 1102: 1058: 1005: 932: 918: 867: 857: 788: 747: 696: 1302:

says "The dl element represents a description list.", with no mention of "association list".

1073:

license, so their specific words cannot be copied into Knowledge (XXG) in their entirety. --

695:

tag (not part of standard HTML, but quite widely used). Delete it, it's an irrelevance here.

355: 2904: 2801: 2781: 2636: 2194: 2173: 2133: 2101: 1528: 1509: 1397: 1305: 1186: 1160: 1122: 1078: 1036: 975: 961: 847: 817:

ISINDEX (and friends) is missing (since the table claims to include not only HTML5 tags...).

723: 649: 630: 601: 281: 133: 29: 2626: 2525: 2270: 2220: 2166: 2139: 1996: 1984: 1505: 20: 2731: 2702: 2621:

for one single purpose (distinguishing this part of code from that different part of code

2148: 1937: 1838: 1789: 1697: 1663: 672: 1559: 861: 2011:: We do not want decorative icons, dingbats, and emojis all over our articles, either.) 1367: 1349: 1281: 1256: 197: 2097:

markup in prose, which is a simple and no more visually intrusive than it needs to be.

1337: 1194: 220:

Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

2920: 2839: 2548: 2516: 2443: 2392: 2379:), even others using escaped HTML entities in various formatting, others still using 2292: 2242: 2094: 2051: 1952: 1904: 1849: 1802: 1801:

exists to prevent pointless edit wars. An RfC should be used if a change is wanted.

1208:

Therefore, I think that the first sentence of the paragraph should be simplified to

992: 564: 2383: 2015: 1674: 743: 2862:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HTML_element&action=edit&section=18

2431:

use of code markup to the fullest extent I know possible given the limitations of

1564: 1329: 999: 2126:

reveals that many of the changes you seem to be objecting to were introduced by

1375:

A description list (a.k.a. association list) consisting of name–value groups ...

1345: 1333: 1074: 1032: 988: 971: 957: 843: 719: 2832:, I'm not sure what you're asking. I added an archive.org link to the book. — 2322:

inline syntax highlighting, even for single HTML elements. Feel free to peruse

1341: 757:

That's not a problem that is the fault of anyone except those that want to hit

540: 472: 441: 2727: 2315: 2144: 1933: 1834: 1821: 1785: 1781: 1693: 1659: 2277:, I completely agree and continue to be frustrated with the fact that inline 1643:, rather than tags, and on their concept, rather than listing those defined. 842:

I deleted this section since it also appears to be a copyright violation. --

2511: 2254: 2237: 2234:"causing distracting and potentially confusing outbursts of pointless color" 2008: 2000: 1023: 953: 489: 262: 1299: 120: 99: 45:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 991:, it's all basic information about the tags, all of which can be found on 2834: 2521: 2266: 2004: 1992: 652:". Why is this and what does that chemical have to do with HTML elements? 485: 2574:

within the article when I arrived, which I noted in the edit summary of

1747:

changed the spellings in this article to US, even after being reverted?

882: 632: 2418:. The other option I considered to achieve the same goal was to remove 2163:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Misuse of code syntax highlighting

2698:) due to the use of semicolon (definition-term) wiki markup with the ( 1263:. 24 December 1999. 10.3 Definition lists: the DL, DT, and DD elements 2912: 2843: 2809: 2789: 2735: 2679: 2649: 2607: 2508:"distracting and potentially confusing outbursts of pointless color" 2186: 2152: 2114: 1960: 1941: 1894: 1874: 1857: 1842: 1810: 1793: 1775: 1756: 1737: 1701: 1686: 1667: 1652: 1622: 1599: 1582: 1536: 1517: 1492: 1460: 1415: 1360: 1323: 1292: 1140: 1110: 1082: 1063: 1040: 1010: 979: 965: 937: 872: 851: 836: 793: 751: 727: 704: 682: 661: 2824:

appeared to go away sometime. I updated the references to point to

2773: 2198: 648:

At the top of the article it says "For the chemical compound, see

2884:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/listing

2482:

the extent that the consensus requires. Thank you for your time.

2003:

in Knowledge (XXG) prose. Same goes for other font effects (see

2873:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/nextid

2582:

the implicit consensus of the article. As a result, I believe I

2478: 1328:

That's a W3C Working Group Note, i.e. an abandoned project (see

890:, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the 887: 2616:

what I want to do" lawyering for me to wade through. This is a

2594:

would rather be taken as verbose than as dismissive and rude. —

1983:

An important consideration for mainspace in particular is that

1761:

What arguments do you have for leaving it as British English? —

2029:

We later started marking up the code blocks with the then-new

635: 595: 338:

Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see

62: 15: 2201:

is below for you and anyone else who cares to read (just not

1344:; there have been seven subsequent versions, finishing with 856:

I restored the section as it is significantly different and

563: 539: 1833:, what is your argument for preferring British spelling? - 2018:

article has pretty much forever been using markup like: '

1019: 2861: 2722:

to make it look consistent throughout. As discussed at

2695: 2259:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Text formatting § Color

2122: 1743:

And just because "you think it's silly" you've already

1635: 1340:

There's a list up to and including 17 December 2012 at

1155: 949: 668: 1560:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/HTML

1280:

notice the extra ref, for the wording of HTML 4.01. --

1055:

documents for HTML) is actually open source to all. —

2828:

list. As far as your question about the reference to

2310:

much smaller visual inconsistencies in an otherwise

1658:

So what are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion? -

484:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 132:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2360: 2324:

the last version before I first edited this article

2066: 1342:

HTML5 W3C Candidate Recommendation 17 December 2012

1338:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#the-dl

691:It's presumably a paste from a past article on the 2927:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use American English 2414:in the article, as I noted in the edit summary of 2285:markup does not conform to the gray background of 244:Computer science articles needing expert attention 1334:Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note 2629:yet, since the D part is already happening, and 2130:in a series of edits on June 1 and April 23–24. 2001:Color is used sparingly and for limited purposes 1119:Agreed. I've caught them in errors before, too. 896:The Knowledge (XXG) community encourages you to 1565:https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/syntax.html#syntax 384:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs 1979:Misuse (gross overuse) of syntax highlighting 1827:the original destubbification of this article 1181:The version of HTML 5 that was approved as a 823:SMALL doesn't define "smaller text" in HTML5. 8: 2987:C-Class Websites articles of High-importance 2161:, and have raised the issue more broadly at 804:The list of "all" tags needs to be updated: 146:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computer science 2967:C-Class software articles of Mid-importance 2536:), but that is a frustrating limitation of 301:Computer science articles without infoboxes 239:Computer science articles needing attention 1608: 1607:tag then this contradiction is resolved. 1568: 1261:HTML 4.01 Specification W3C Recommendation 948:If you use your eyes instead of the tool, 436: 205:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 179: 94: 33:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 2556:the version before I started editing here 2230:the discussion about this on my talk page 2215:for visual clarity.Although I agree that 1051:The Importance of Correct HTML Commenting 1024:http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp 954:http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp 2937:Mid-importance Computer science articles 1346:HTML5 W3C Recommendation 28 October 2014 860:confirms to my satisfaction it is not a 782: 778: 774: 771: 768: 765: 762: 758: 2854: 2273:are at all relevant here.Regarding the 1440:tag. Is it deprecated or nonstandard? 1221: 438: 96: 66: 2655: 2587: 2529: 2507: 2498: 2494: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2450: 2428: 2339: 2274: 2233: 2219:is generally a clear violation of the 2216: 1909:revision 816436305 of 21 December 2017 1712:American vs. British English spellings 2942:WikiProject Computer science articles 2654:I am sorry that you consider this as 1947:but doing that requires more than an 1829:seems to have used American English. 1191:Nightly Editor's Draft, 23 March 2015 1183:W3C Recommendation on 28 October 2014 808:B does not define bold text in HTML5. 506:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing 149:Template:WikiProject Computer science 53:, this should not be changed without 7: 2501:. Syntax highlighting here serves a 2495:"introducing extraneous stylization" 2318:'s comments above, my edits did not 2217:"introducing extraneous stylization" 1991:ones, but others as well, including 1592:2003:6:33B6:D895:B9A1:8144:44FD:DBB2 478:This article is within the scope of 126:This article is within the scope of 2821: 2817: 2537: 2432: 2390: 2376: 2356: 2298: 2290: 2286: 2278: 2246: 2041: 2030: 1390: 1386: 1382: 915:New contributors are always welcome 85:It is of interest to the following 2371:but without angle brackets (e.g., 1917:revision 503906311 of 24 July 2012 1913:revision 729906336 of 15 July 2016 952:is nearly a word-for-word copy of 923:many reasons why you might want to 814:HGROUP is no longer part of HTML5. 320:Timeline of computing 2020–present 14: 2982:High-importance Websites articles 2952:Low-importance Computing articles 2932:C-Class Computer science articles 1330:Ending Work on a Technical Report 913:to try out your editing skills. 346:Computing articles needing images 2962:Mid-importance software articles 2612:This is too much "there isn't a 2560:the most recent version I edited 2534:already existed before I arrived 2157:I already have a thread open at 1929:revision 3059657 of 4 April 2004 1630:Move towards "List of HTML tags" 1469: 881: 600: 471: 440: 196: 119: 98: 67: 19: 2768:. Now I learned that parameter 2532:you noted is a problem (and it 526:This article has been rated as 166:This article has been rated as 2752:because I made a mistake: for 2472:. I also believe I understand 2351:without angle brackets (e.g., 2347:were inconsistent, some being 1546:In this section is paragraph " 1537:21:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 1518:19:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 1300:the DL entry in the HTML5 spec 1230:"4.5 Grouping content — HTML5" 1203:Working Draft 12 February 2009 509:Template:WikiProject Computing 1: 2894:W3C to WHATWG Living Standard 2790:23:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2634: 2530:"grossly inconsistent markup" 2340:"grossly inconsistent markup" 2328:the most recent version by me 2275:"grossly inconsistent markup" 2193:There is much to cover here, 2171: 2099: 1776:14:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1757:02:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1738:02:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1623:19:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC) 1493:02:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1395: 1303: 1195:Working Draft 22 January 2008 1120: 572:This article is supported by 548:This article is supported by 500:and see a list of open tasks. 400:Tag all relevant articles in 140:and see a list of open tasks. 2913:21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 2660:the MoS talk page discussion 2576:my first edit to the article 2416:my first edit to the article 1372:OK, though I would go with: 1187:Working Draft, 17 April 2015 705:16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 683:15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 662:14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 409:WikiProject Computer science 185:WikiProject Computer science 129:WikiProject Computer science 2810:03:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC) 2778:Thanks for the correction! 2359:), others being wrapped in 2205:much). It is indented with 1702:02:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) 1687:18:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 1668:17:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 1653:14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 1600:15:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC) 1499:Article needs a lot of work 837:23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 340:List of computer scientists 3013: 2947:C-Class Computing articles 2844:21:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 1583:18:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 1461:21:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 1199:Working Draft 10 June 2008 993:MDN's HTML developer guide 532:project's importance scale 172:project's importance scale 2977:C-Class Websites articles 2957:C-Class software articles 2736:06:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC) 2696:the "Tables" section down 2680:01:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC) 2650:03:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 2608:03:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 2515:language, assuming their 2342:you noted above) but was 2187:01:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) 2153:01:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC) 2115:12:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1961:07:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 1942:06:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 1895:13:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1875:10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1858:07:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1843:07:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1811:04:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1794:04:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1416:11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 1257:"Lists in HTML documents" 1235:World Wide Web Consortium 1141:12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 1111:21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 1083:21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 1064:18:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 1041:18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 1011:17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 980:17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 966:17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 938:15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 917:. You don't even need to 873:15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 852:15:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 794:15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 728:15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 571: 547: 525: 466: 402:Category:Computer science 178: 165: 152:Computer science articles 114: 93: 2724:Template talk:XMLElement 2499:"extraneous stylization" 2470:'extended' inline cases" 667:It was added in July in 404:and sub-categories with 2720:just edited the article 2631:WP:There is no deadline 1433:Also, I can't find the 1361:21:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1324:20:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1293:12:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 752:01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2997:All Computing articles 2826:WHATWG's Obsolete tags 2528:here.I agree that the 2165:. While I could just 1882:AnAwesomeArticleEditor 1763:AnAwesomeArticleEditor 1725:AnAwesomeArticleEditor 1480:AnAwesomeArticleEditor 1478:by me (a while ago). — 1449:AnAwesomeArticleEditor 1426:What about HTML5 tags? 568: 544: 494:information technology 365:Computer science stubs 75:This article is rated 2992:All Websites articles 2972:All Software articles 2048:(directly or via the 669:this unexplained edit 567: 543: 481:WikiProject Computing 79:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2159:User talk:Nøkkenbuer 921:(although there are 575:WikiProject Websites 551:WikiProject Software 183:Things you can help 51:relevant style guide 47:varieties of English 2760:has an alias named 2623:inside a code block 2334:present in places ( 2265:. I do not see how 1523:Added a new section 738:text overprints box 49:. According to the 2830:HTML 4 For Dummies 2764:and I changed it, 2718:template(s). I've 2690:Whitespace problem 2572:implicit consensus 2412:implicit consensus 2326:and compare it to 2065:as in 'Lists with 1923:: as I linked to ( 1567:(last paragraph) 906:how to edit a page 800:List of "all" tags 569: 545: 512:Computing articles 81:content assessment 2491: 2455:for its own sake" 2297:, and even block 1989:MOS:Accessibility 1921:User:Andy Dingley 1723:in the article. — 1625: 1613:comment added by 1585: 1573:comment added by 1551: 1542:Elements vs. tags 1464: 1447:comment added by 1437:...</mark: --> 901:in updating pages 641: 640: 594: 593: 590: 589: 586: 585: 435: 434: 431: 430: 427: 426: 423: 422: 61: 60: 3004: 2886: 2881: 2875: 2870: 2864: 2859: 2823: 2819: 2818:<listing: --> 2816:The sources for 2779: 2772:is used too for 2748:to this article 2717: 2711: 2707: 2701: 2648: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2485: 2469: 2459:"blocks of code" 2448: 2442: 2438: 2396: 2388: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2358: 2304: 2296: 2288: 2284: 2252: 2214: 2208: 2185: 2137: 2125: 2113: 2088: 2084: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2069: 2063: 2055: 2047: 2036: 2025: 2021: 1999:, and others.) 1892: 1773: 1735: 1722: 1547: 1490: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1463: 1441: 1414: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1371: 1352: 1322: 1284: 1273: 1272: 1270: 1268: 1253: 1247: 1246: 1244: 1242: 1226: 1158: 1139: 1062: 1009: 936: 894:link at the top. 885: 871: 829:Andreas Rejbrand 820:MAIN is missing. 811:DATA is missing. 792: 694: 680: 675: 650:Nitrosyl bromide 644:Nitrosyl bromide 636: 604: 596: 514: 513: 510: 507: 504: 475: 468: 467: 462: 459: 444: 437: 413: 407: 282:Computer science 211:Article requests 200: 193: 192: 180: 154: 153: 150: 147: 144: 143:Computer science 134:Computer science 123: 116: 115: 110: 106:Computer science 102: 95: 78: 72: 71: 63: 30:American English 26:This article is 23: 16: 3012: 3011: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2917: 2916: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2882: 2878: 2871: 2867: 2860: 2856: 2822:<nextid: --> 2797: 2777: 2743: 2715: 2709: 2705: 2699: 2692: 2618:WP:Common sense 2592: 2551: 2545: 2540:syntaxhighlight 2467: 2446: 2440: 2435:syntaxhighlight 2386: 2380: 2372: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2301:syntaxhighlight 2281:syntaxhighlight 2249:syntaxhighlight 2221:Manual of Style 2212: 2206: 2138:do you want to 2131: 2128:User:Nøkkenbuer 2121: 2086: 2080: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2060:syntaxhighlight 2057: 2049: 2044:syntaxhighlight 2033:syntaxhighlight 2023: 2019: 1981: 1903:In response to 1891: 1885: 1772: 1766: 1734: 1728: 1717: 1714: 1632: 1544: 1525: 1501: 1489: 1483: 1470: 1468: 1442: 1438: 1428: 1412: 1381:rename them to 1365: 1350: 1320: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1266: 1264: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1240: 1238: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1154: 1151: 1137: 1056: 1003: 930: 865: 802: 786: 784: 780: 776: 773: 770: 767: 764: 760: 740: 692: 678: 673: 646: 637: 631: 609: 580:High-importance 511: 508: 505: 502: 501: 460: 450: 419: 416: 411: 405: 393:Project-related 388: 369: 350: 324: 305: 286: 267: 248: 224: 151: 148: 145: 142: 141: 108: 76: 55:broad consensus 12: 11: 5: 3010: 3008: 3000: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2984: 2979: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2959: 2954: 2949: 2944: 2939: 2934: 2929: 2919: 2918: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2876: 2865: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2796: 2793: 2756:the parameter 2742: 2739: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2664:permanent link 2624: 2615: 2614:policy against 2585: 2581: 2517:screen readers 2504: 2483: 2475: 2454: 2426: 2421: 2409: 2345: 2333: 2321: 2313: 2243:screen readers 2226: 2204: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2098: 2092: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1951:announcement. 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1887: 1886: 1863: 1768: 1767: 1730: 1729: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1636:recent changes 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1603: 1602: 1587: 1586: 1562: 1543: 1540: 1524: 1521: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1485: 1484: 1435: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1410: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1318: 1275: 1274: 1248: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1150: 1149:The DL element 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1135: 1114: 1113: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1067: 1066: 1044: 1043: 1014: 1013: 983: 982: 968: 941: 940: 929:, have fun! — 895: 892:edit this page 878: 877: 876: 875: 825: 824: 821: 818: 815: 812: 809: 801: 798: 797: 796: 739: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 710: 709: 708: 707: 686: 685: 654:109.149.80.240 645: 642: 639: 638: 633: 629: 627: 624: 623: 615: 614: 611: 610: 605: 599: 592: 591: 588: 587: 584: 583: 570: 560: 559: 556:Mid-importance 546: 536: 535: 528:Low-importance 524: 518: 517: 515: 498:the discussion 476: 464: 463: 461:Low‑importance 445: 433: 432: 429: 428: 425: 424: 421: 420: 418: 417: 415: 414: 397: 389: 387: 386: 380: 370: 368: 367: 361: 351: 349: 348: 343: 335: 325: 323: 322: 316: 306: 304: 303: 297: 287: 285: 284: 278: 268: 266: 265: 259: 249: 247: 246: 241: 235: 225: 223: 222: 216: 204: 202: 201: 189: 188: 176: 175: 168:Mid-importance 164: 158: 157: 155: 138:the discussion 124: 112: 111: 109:Mid‑importance 103: 91: 90: 84: 73: 59: 58: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3009: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2955: 2953: 2950: 2948: 2945: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2922: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2893: 2885: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2855: 2851: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2827: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2794: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2740: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2714: 2704: 2697: 2689: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2632: 2628: 2622: 2619: 2613: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2589: 2583: 2579: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2550: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2502: 2500: 2496: 2493:I agree that 2492: 2489: 2480: 2473: 2471: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2445: 2436: 2430: 2424: 2419: 2417: 2413: 2407: 2405: 2401: 2394: 2385: 2354: 2350: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2331: 2329: 2325: 2319: 2317: 2311: 2308: 2302: 2294: 2287:<code: --> 2282: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2250: 2244: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2211: 2202: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2176: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2141: 2135: 2129: 2124: 2120:Checking the 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2096: 2095:semantic HTML 2090: 2061: 2053: 2045: 2038: 2034: 2027: 2017: 2012: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1978: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1896: 1890: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1823: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1771: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1733: 1726: 1721: 1711: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1629: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1615:205.189.3.143 1612: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575:94.143.171.33 1572: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1541: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1522: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1498: 1494: 1488: 1481: 1476: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1436:<mark: --> 1434: 1431: 1425: 1417: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1262: 1258: 1252: 1249: 1237: 1236: 1231: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1148: 1142: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1125: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1060: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1007: 1001: 998: 994: 990: 987: 986: 985: 984: 981: 977: 973: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 939: 934: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 909:, or use the 908: 907: 902: 900: 893: 889: 884: 880: 879: 874: 869: 863: 859: 855: 854: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 822: 819: 816: 813: 810: 807: 806: 805: 799: 795: 790: 756: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 737: 729: 725: 721: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 706: 702: 698: 693:<nobr: --> 690: 689: 688: 687: 684: 681: 676: 670: 666: 665: 664: 663: 659: 655: 651: 643: 626: 625: 622: 621: 617: 616: 613: 612: 608: 603: 598: 597: 581: 578:(assessed as 577: 576: 566: 562: 561: 557: 554:(assessed as 553: 552: 542: 538: 537: 533: 529: 523: 520: 519: 516: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 482: 477: 474: 470: 469: 465: 458: 454: 449: 446: 443: 439: 410: 403: 399: 398: 396: 394: 390: 385: 382: 381: 379: 377: 376: 371: 366: 363: 362: 360: 358: 357: 352: 347: 344: 341: 337: 336: 334: 332: 331: 326: 321: 318: 317: 315: 313: 312: 307: 302: 299: 298: 296: 294: 293: 288: 283: 280: 279: 277: 275: 274: 269: 264: 261: 260: 258: 256: 255: 250: 245: 242: 240: 237: 236: 234: 232: 231: 226: 221: 218: 217: 215: 213: 212: 207: 206: 203: 199: 195: 194: 191: 190: 186: 182: 181: 177: 173: 169: 163: 160: 159: 156: 139: 135: 131: 130: 125: 122: 118: 117: 113: 107: 104: 101: 97: 92: 88: 82: 74: 70: 65: 64: 56: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 31: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2902: 2897: 2879: 2868: 2857: 2849: 2833: 2829: 2798: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2750:was reverted 2744: 2693: 2637: 2484: 2439:(from which 2375:rather than 2355:rather than 2352: 2348: 2261:, including 2210:block indent 2174: 2123:page history 2102: 2039: 2028: 2016:HTML element 2013: 1982: 1948: 1867:Andy Dingley 1749:Andy Dingley 1744: 1719: 1715: 1679:Andy Dingley 1645:Andy Dingley 1640: 1633: 1609:— Preceding 1569:— Preceding 1554: 1548: 1545: 1526: 1502: 1474: 1443:— Preceding 1439: 1432: 1429: 1398: 1306: 1279: 1265:. Retrieved 1260: 1251: 1239:. Retrieved 1233: 1224: 1216: 1207: 1180: 1175:cited source 1167: 1152: 1123: 1103:Andy Dingley 1059:Technical 13 1028: 1020:Technical 13 1006:Technical 13 1000:CC-BY-SA 2.5 933:Technical 13 905: 898: 891: 868:Technical 13 826: 803: 789:Technical 13 741: 697:Andy Dingley 647: 618: 606: 573: 549: 527: 479: 392: 391: 375:Unreferenced 373: 372: 354: 353: 328: 327: 309: 308: 290: 289: 271: 270: 252: 251: 228: 227: 209: 208: 167: 127: 87:WikiProjects 42: 38: 34: 27: 2905:SirMeowMeow 2812:Jenny Chen 2802:Kuroko19148 2782:Jimmy Olano 2656:"lawyering" 2638:SMcCandlish 2588:"haphazard" 2526:WP:NOT#BLOG 2429:"haphazard" 2377:<em: --> 2357:<em: --> 2271:WP:NOT#BLOG 2263:§§ In prose 2195:SMcCandlish 2175:SMcCandlish 2140:revert/undo 2134:SMcCandlish 2103:SMcCandlish 1997:WP:NOT#BLOG 1949:ex cathedra 1529:Steve Quinn 1510:Steve Quinn 1399:SMcCandlish 1391:<ad: --> 1387:<at: --> 1383:<al: --> 1307:SMcCandlish 1189:and of the 1161:SMcCandlish 1124:SMcCandlish 28:written in 2921:Categories 2850:References 2795:References 2766:I am sorry 2746:My edition 2741:My mistake 2713:XMLElement 2668:Nøkkenbuer 2596:Nøkkenbuer 2503:functional 2453:decoration 2225:functional 2091:decoration 1927:) before, 1822:MOS:RETAIN 1782:MOS:ARTCON 1217:References 1153:Regarding 997:which uses 2512:MOS:COLOR 2463:"complex" 2408:enforcing 2349:boldfaced 2336:including 2320:introduce 2307:mentioned 2255:MOS:COLOR 2238:MOS:COLOR 2009:MOS:ICONS 1925:as a diff 1817:WP:ENGVAR 1815:Invoking 1799:WP:ENGVAR 1504:with the 1368:Redrose64 1156:this edit 503:Computing 490:computing 486:computers 448:Computing 263:Computing 2754:Cite web 2676:contribs 2604:contribs 2584:resolved 2522:MOS:TONE 2461:and for 2425:resolved 2267:MOS:TONE 2024:%inline; 2005:MOS:TEXT 1993:MOS:TONE 1953:Johnuniq 1905:Johnuniq 1889:contribs 1850:Johnuniq 1803:Johnuniq 1770:contribs 1732:contribs 1641:elements 1611:unsigned 1571:unsigned 1487:contribs 1457:contribs 1445:unsigned 1171:contribs 607:Archives 457:Websites 453:Software 311:Maintain 254:Copyedit 43:traveled 2758:website 2580:against 2568:Group 2 2564:Group 1 2404:Group 2 2400:Group 1 2332:already 2087:%block; 2020:%block; 927:Andreas 911:sandbox 899:be bold 744:Jidanni 530:on the 292:Infobox 230:Cleanup 170:on the 77:C-class 39:defense 2703:Anchor 2627:WP:BRD 2393:nowiki 2344:wildly 2167:WP:BRD 1985:WP:MOS 1720:colour 1718:color= 1675:§Lists 1506:WP:MOS 1389:, and 1353:rose64 1285:rose64 1241:22 May 1075:Beland 1033:Beland 989:Beland 972:Beland 958:Beland 919:log in 844:Beland 720:Beland 679:matrix 492:, and 273:Expand 83:scale. 2774:COinS 2728:dcljr 2708:and) 2542:: --> 2488:TL;DR 2437:: --> 2395:: --> 2368:: --> 2316:dcljr 2303:: --> 2295:: --> 2283:: --> 2251:: --> 2199:TL;DR 2145:dcljr 2081:: --> 2074:: --> 2046:: --> 2035:: --> 1934:dcljr 1835:dcljr 1786:dcljr 1745:twice 1694:dcljr 1660:dcljr 1634:Some 1267:2 May 1029:about 356:Stubs 330:Photo 187:with: 35:color 2909:talk 2840:talk 2820:for 2806:talk 2786:talk 2770:work 2762:work 2732:talk 2672:talk 2666:). — 2600:talk 2586:the 2566:and 2558:and 2549:code 2544:and 2538:< 2524:and 2479:HTML 2465:and 2444:code 2433:< 2427:the 2410:the 2402:and 2391:< 2365:code 2362:< 2338:the 2299:< 2291:< 2279:< 2269:and 2247:< 2203:that 2149:talk 2085:are 2075:< 2068:< 2052:code 2042:< 2031:< 2022:and 2014:The 1957:talk 1938:talk 1871:talk 1854:talk 1839:talk 1831:Andy 1807:talk 1790:talk 1753:talk 1698:talk 1683:talk 1664:talk 1649:talk 1619:talk 1596:talk 1579:talk 1533:talk 1514:talk 1475:Done 1453:talk 1357:talk 1348:. -- 1289:talk 1269:2015 1243:2013 1165:talk 1107:talk 1079:talk 1057:{{U| 1037:talk 1004:{{U| 976:talk 962:talk 931:{{U| 888:wiki 866:{{U| 864:. — 848:talk 833:talk 787:{{U| 785:. — 779:Ctrl 759:Ctrl 748:talk 724:talk 701:talk 674:Mind 658:talk 2899:--> 2835:sbb 2647:😼 2474:why 2420:all 2384:tag 2312:far 2293:pre 2184:😼 2112:😼 2083:... 2056:or 1413:ⱷ≼ 1409:≽ⱷ҅ 1351:Red 1332:or 1321:ⱷ≼ 1317:≽ⱷ҅ 1283:Red 1159:by 1138:ⱷ≼ 1134:≽ⱷ҅ 1061:}} 1008:}} 935:}} 925:). 870:}} 791:}} 522:Low 162:Mid 2923:: 2911:) 2842:) 2808:) 2788:) 2780:-- 2776:. 2734:) 2716:}} 2710:{{ 2706:}} 2700:{{ 2678:) 2674:• 2635:— 2633:. 2606:) 2602:• 2552:}} 2546:{{ 2447:}} 2441:{{ 2387:}} 2381:{{ 2373:em 2353:em 2289:, 2213:}} 2207:{{ 2172:— 2151:) 2100:— 2078:li 2071:ul 2062:}} 2058:{{ 2054:}} 2050:{{ 1995:, 1959:) 1940:) 1893:) 1873:) 1856:) 1841:) 1809:) 1792:) 1774:) 1755:) 1736:) 1700:) 1685:) 1666:) 1651:) 1621:) 1598:) 1581:) 1552:" 1535:) 1516:) 1508:. 1491:) 1459:) 1455:• 1396:— 1385:, 1359:) 1304:— 1291:) 1259:. 1232:. 1121:— 1109:) 1081:) 1039:) 978:) 964:) 862:CV 850:) 835:) 750:) 726:) 703:) 660:) 582:). 558:). 488:, 455:/ 451:: 412:}} 406:{{ 41:, 37:, 2907:( 2838:( 2804:( 2784:( 2730:( 2670:( 2662:( 2645:¢ 2642:☏ 2598:( 2490:) 2486:( 2468:" 2451:" 2182:¢ 2179:☏ 2147:( 2136:: 2132:@ 2110:¢ 2107:☏ 1955:( 1936:( 1884:( 1880:— 1869:( 1852:( 1837:( 1805:( 1788:( 1765:( 1751:( 1727:( 1696:( 1681:( 1662:( 1647:( 1617:( 1594:( 1577:( 1531:( 1512:( 1482:( 1451:( 1411:ᴥ 1407:¢ 1404:☏ 1401:☺ 1370:: 1366:@ 1355:( 1319:ᴥ 1315:¢ 1312:☏ 1309:☺ 1287:( 1271:. 1245:. 1168:· 1163:( 1136:ᴥ 1132:¢ 1129:☏ 1126:☺ 1105:( 1077:( 1035:( 995:( 974:( 960:( 846:( 831:( 783:0 781:+ 775:+ 772:+ 769:+ 766:+ 763:+ 761:+ 746:( 722:( 699:( 656:( 620:1 534:. 395:: 378:: 359:: 342:) 333:: 314:: 295:: 276:: 257:: 233:: 214:: 174:. 89:: 57:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index