Formatting links

[David]

Neredbojias wrote:
....

I made it up (-not saying it wasn't made-up before, but I never saw it
if so.) As Jonathan suggested, the "qualm" means a feeling of doubt or
misgivings about something.

It has been used often. Google it, and you will see. (I even seem to
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]

With neither quill nor qualm, David quothed:

Neredbojias wrote:
...

It has been used often. Google it, and you will see. (I even seem to
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. ???

A more literal translation of what _I_ meant might be, "With neither pen
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]

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

No, no. A qualm is an astringent, highly intoxicating drink.

I think you're thinking of "balm".

Occasionally, people do not have any in order to appear sharper
than usual when addressing bods at alt.html.

Yes but some people actually appear sharper when they're embalmed.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:

A is still inline, so can't contain an H2 element. (Just because you've
made it *look* like it's a block element, doesn't mean it really *is* a
block element!)

Why not? An inline element styled to "look like" a block element takes
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.

 

[Steve Pugh]

With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:

Why not? An inline element styled to "look like" a block element takes
block attributes, doesn't it?

No, it takes style properties as per a block level element but as far
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.

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.

CSS 'validation' has nothing to do with this. It's invalid HTML.

Steve

 

[Andy Dingley]

Why not? An inline element styled to "look like" a block element takes
block attributes, doesn't it?

No. The DTD nesting rules are fixed and unchangeable. The CSS display
property merely controls how they're displayed.

 

[dorayme]

A more literal translation of what _I_ meant might be, "With neither pen
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.

This won't do Boji... It is beyond defence now...

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Steve Pugh quothed:

No, it takes style properties as per a block level element but as far
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.


CSS 'validation' has nothing to do with this. It's invalid HTML.

Well, you and Andy seem to agree so I'll defer to your expertise. I
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]

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:

No. The DTD nesting rules are fixed and unchangeable. The CSS display
property merely controls how they're displayed.

Okay, I may not like it, but I see your point.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Well, you and Andy seem to agree so I'll defer to your expertise. I
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.

"block" and "inline" are CSS property values.

The ones relevant here are %inline; and %block;
the HTML content models defined as entities in the DTD
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html#block

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:

"block" and "inline" are CSS property values.

The ones relevant here are %inline; and %block;
the HTML content models defined as entities in the DTD
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html#block

-which differentiation I personally think is unnecessary, but that's
like arguing politics, I suppose, and I'm not going to participate in an
epic battle over it.