Alexey N. Solofnenko wrote:
Actually, > is also not required.
True, but very confusing not to quote it.
Peter
- Alexey.
Steve Cohen wrote:
To be honest, I never thought about it. The previous version of the page used them and I just assumed they were required, and followed the pattern with my new examples. I didn't even assume, actually, I just followed the pattern unthinkingly.
But you're quite right. The " are not necessary. The < and >, however, are. The source file is an html page.
We aren't seriously suggesting formatting these emails, are we? To me, that makes no sense at all. This is a cvs-generated diff. Modifying it would be incorrect, making the diff unusable as a patch, which is, I guess, why these emails include them.
I will, however, remove the unnecessary " marks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
