 | | Re: will <pre></pre> tags work?
|
|
(...) Viewing source - yup, looks like you're right. It's not saved that way, though - if you viewed the post with a regular newsreader, you'd see <pre> just fine (as plain old none-htmlized ascii text). -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: will <pre></pre> tags work?
|
|
(...) Wanna bet all <'s and >'s get replaced with < and > respectively? Jasper (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: will <pre></pre> tags work?
|
|
(...) Here's how it's stored: (URL) can always click the "View Raw Message" link on any article to see it this way. --Todd (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: will <pre></pre> tags work?
|
|
(...) As I did, you mean? Yeah. ;) Jasper (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: will <pre></pre> tags work?
|
|
(...) Hey, cool. I just wish Dejanews^H^H^H^H would be a bit more consistent about including their version of that link.. Jasper (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
