I been testing the new expansion to include "inline" tags. Seems to work well! Its neat.
I noticed that overall behaviour changed a bit. Previously "inline" Glyphs would directly accept "block" tags ... e.g. ....
/°div Created a div°/
That behaviour seems to have changed so that "inline Glyphs" only directly support "inline HTML tags" and no longer "HTML block tags". Right? (I mean directly, pragma can still do it when needed.)
This not a criticism. But, in some ways, I did think, it might be better to let any glyph accept any HTML tag directly?
But, IF we going to have the "inline Glyphs" only directly support inline HTML and "block Glyphs" only directly support block HTML, then I think it important the documentation gives a list of what tags work with which Glyphs??
I been testing the new expansion to include "inline" tags. Seems to work well! Its neat.
I noticed that overall behaviour changed a bit. Previously "inline" Glyphs would directly accept "block" tags ... e.g. ....
That behaviour seems to have changed so that "inline Glyphs" only directly support "inline HTML tags" and no longer "HTML block tags". Right? (I mean directly, pragma can still do it when needed.)
This not a criticism. But, in some ways, I did think, it might be better to let any glyph accept any HTML tag directly?
But, IF we going to have the "inline Glyphs" only directly support inline HTML and "block Glyphs" only directly support block HTML, then I think it important the documentation gives a list of what tags work with which Glyphs??
Originally posted by @TiddlyTweeter in https://github.com/wikilabs/plugins/issues/76#issuecomment-803531854