Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:45 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
arborint wrote:
d11wtq wrote:Someone I know was picked up last year by a (less fortunate) chick with the line "do you wanna watch black adder?" He thought it to be a perfectly innocent and generous request until he got back :P
Sounds like it was a Cunning Plan ...
Baldrick, your plans are as cunning as the plan Napoleon came up with at Waterloo.

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:07 pm
by alex.barylski
d11wtq wrote::lol: And here's me thinking the story was going to be mostly about the chick :P
Ditto

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:06 am
by Grim...
I thought it was going to be about World Of Warcraft...

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
by s.dot
Darn you guys :P

Well... the story about the chick. She's a friend that moved to japan to be with husband in the airforce. I was teaching her online.. for fun. ;)

Not an exciting story eh?

And world of warcraft.... never played it. ;) I'm not much of a gamer.

I'm still kind of mad about the "new" (guess its not so new) way of teaching people HTML. I motion that the board should change the B I U bbtags to something more "newish". Perhaps [strong] and [em]. ;)

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:32 am
by Chris Corbyn
I think they should be teaching the "new" stuff. What's the point in teach people things are deprecated? Sort of :?

I mean, we don't still teach people to use $name or $HTTP_POST_VARS['name'] instead of $_POST['name'], and then once they've learnt it tell them it's actually deprected and they should use $_POST ;)

I think learning CSS/XHTML and standards is actually an easier thing to do if you're coming at it from a fresh perspective with no habits to break out of. Once you've learned it one way it's difficult to train your mind to snap out of thinking that way.

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:30 am
by Oren
I agree.

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:46 am
by Roja
scottayy wrote:I'm still kind of mad about the "new" (guess its not so new) way of teaching people HTML. I motion that the board should change the B I U bbtags to something more "newish". Perhaps [strong] and [em]. ;)
You didn't read my links. :)

Bold and italic are still valid. They aren't *replaced* by strong and em.

Think of it this way. If I said, "I want to say this sentence REALLY LOUDLY", thats a strong tag.

If I said, "I don't need this sentence to be spoken loudly, but I want it to appear in bold so it looks better", guess what - thats a bold tag.

See the difference?

That said, yes, more often than not, a strong tag would be more appropriate than a bold tag, so it would be an improvement.

But phpbb is far behind on a number of improvements.
arborint wrote: 1. Why would you add style="" to a <font> tag? Styling should go on an actual container, not a deprecated formatting tag. Would you do <b style="font-weight: normal;"> ?
I wouldn't. I agree - its rather screwed up as a teaching reference.