Click here to edit contents of this page.
Click here to toggle editing of individual sections of the page (if possible). Watch headings for an "edit" link when available.
Append content without editing the whole page source.
Check out how this page has evolved in the past.
If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it.
View and manage file attachments for this page.
A few useful tools to manage this Site.
See pages that link to and include this page.
Change the name (also URL address, possibly the category) of the page.
View wiki source for this page without editing.
View/set parent page (used for creating breadcrumbs and structured layout).
Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page.
Something does not work as expected? Find out what you can do.
General Wikidot.com documentation and help section.
Wikidot.com Terms of Service - what you can, what you should not etc.
Wikidot.com Privacy Policy.
Test
##FF0000|Test##
@<Test
@<But will it work
on Multi-lined
Text?>@
It likes like it will work well!
My favorite part about this by far is the easy creation of non-breaking spaces.
Timothy Foster - @tfAuroratide
Auroratide.com - Go here if you're nerdy like me
And we now have an easy way to show code for includes without them being parsed. Nice!
[[include :css-competition:include:bar color=rgba(255,0,0,0.3) |logo=none |img=none]]
-Ed
Community Admin
I don't understand why this new feature has 2 functionalities that do exactly the opposite of each other: one that escapes the code sequence, i.e. does not render something, and the second which does not escape but actually renders a code sequence to a specific character.
Actually there is one 'unfunctionality' and one functionality:
The two go together and are not opposite. It would be possible to unescape HTML entities everywhere in the text, separately. But if you bypass code generation then you MUST unescape HTML entities at least in that text, otherwise you can't detect the end of the escape sequence.
The nasty alternative would be to unescape ONLY > but that seemed silly.
Does this help?
Portfolio
Not only silly, but probably not correct in some corner cases:
When you unescape ONLY ">";, you have no way to show ">", so you would need to unescape "&" as well, (which makes it only one entity — "<" — distant from original HTML escaping). And without unescaping "<" you can't easily tell what to do with "@<blablabla@<abcabc>@".
HTML escaping, gives full control over what's parsed by Wikidot and what's not.
Piotr Gabryjeluk
visit my blog
Is there going to be a Tuesday rant again? I haven't had anything to rant about lately.
Next week ok for you?
Portfolio
It's fine, I was just kinda curious, since there hasn't been one.
hi….
I don't understand why this new feature has 2 functionalities that do exactly the opposite of each other: one that escapes , and the second which does not escape but actually renders a code sequence to a specific character.
Guide me about it
thanks
heidy