Log in

No account? Create an account
Proof-reading note - Input Junkie
June 7th, 2013
08:30 am


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Proof-reading note
In my previous post, there was a gratuitous </a>. I've gotten it to appear at both dw and lj by using [& # 6 0] and [& # 6 2], without the spaces.

Something at dreamwidth very kindly suppressed it in my post there (no doubt related to the same helpful thing which turns [& # 6 0] without the spaces into <), but it appeared in my cross-post to livejournal.

Trying to find out how to just mention [& # 6 0] turns up [& l t], which would be easier to remember, but the problem seems to be that asking about escape codes just turns up information about escape codes rather than how to tell html how to *not* let the escape code make the character.

I suppose this is evidence that google isn't close to sentience yet.

ETA: I had two reasons for posting this-- a hint for people who cross-post and care about such things to proof read at all the sites your post is showing up at, and (as the post evolved) a request for how to post escape codes without letting them escape.

As for google's sentience, I'm assuming it would go through a stage of not being clever enough to dissemble by giving bad search results.

This entry was posted at http://nancylebov.dreamwidth.org/1010154.html. Comments are welcome here or there. comment count unavailable comments so far on that entry.

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:June 7th, 2013 12:58 pm (UTC)

Google sentience

It's just lulling you into a false sense of security.
[User Picture]
Date:June 7th, 2013 02:16 pm (UTC)

If I correctly understand what you're asking (and assuming Dreamwidth doesn't do something different that messes this up), the trick is to escape the ampersand.

  • If I want someone to see "<" I use "&lt;".
  • If I want someone to see "&lt;" I use "&amp;lt;".

A literal ampersand tells an HTML parser to read up to the next semicolon and interpret what it read as a character reference.

[User Picture]
Date:June 7th, 2013 03:19 pm (UTC)
I don't think that sentience would prevent bad results.
[User Picture]
Date:June 7th, 2013 04:49 pm (UTC)
I'm sure sentience wouldn't prevent bad results, but I think a reasonably bright search engine would notice that I kept trying to get it do *something* and it wasn't working. I'm not sure google would need to be sentient to ask me what I wanted and go from there-- google translate is surprisingly good for something non-sentient.

However, if it can't manage that much sophistication, I don't think it's sentient. I do think its built-in default to try to give people the results they want would push it in the direction of good results.
nancybuttons.com Powered by LiveJournal.com