PI TIMES THREE I

[Jeff]

Perchance If Thou Inexplicably Mutters Expandable Shoutings, Thou Hasto Really Expand 'Em!


Jeff Anonymous, rationalizing semi-imaginary rule pi*3i, which states that all things rendered in capitals on the Acronyms fora must be acronymised.

[Jeff who forgot an I]

Perchance If Thou Inexplicably Mutters Expandable Shoutings, Thou Hasto Really Expand 'Em Imminenly!

[Tony]

>>> On 08 November 2001 16:11:40 UTC, Jeff who forgot an I wrote:

> Imminenly!

Is "Imminenly" a poor substitute for "Immediately"?

"Imminently" doesn't properly convey the urgency implicit in rule pi*3i.

People Ignoring To Immediately Make Expansions Should Try Harder - Rendering Expansions Educates Individuals.

RULE OF THUMB
Rather Unique 'Legislation' Explains Observed Findings That Have, Usually, Many Benefits

[Jeff Anonymous]

Okay then...it's Immediately.


Angela?  Change that...just add "(Immediately suggested by Tony)" or somewhat.  

[Tony]

>>> On 09 November 2001 16:37:45 UTC, Jeff Anonymous wrote:

Okay then...it's Immediately.


Angela?  Change that...just add "(Immediately suggested by Tony)" or somewhat.  

ROFL!

SOMEWHAT
Some Other Member Expanded What He Acronomised Terribly

(This is a 'private' ac just for us few! Do not include it in the updates, as I do not mean what it implies!)

[Jeff]

<tony>
ROFL!
</tony>
Tony:

It is my duty (or desire, your choice) to inform you that rule pi*3i of the Acronymists' Charter, as stated in my latest acronymisation, says that all capitalised expressions on these fora or otherwise in the presence of Angela must be acronymised.  

In other words, to clear your conscience, yor exclamation is requiring of an alternative acronym.  Rolling On Floor Laughing is a tad dull coming from the guy behind 1200 acronyms.  

Ah, I'll do it for ye

Raunchy Overlord Fell Laschivously.

[Angela]

Aah, I see we're onto XML now...
<jeff>
In other words, to clear your conscience, yor exclamation is requiring of an alternative acronym.  Rolling On Floor Laughing is a tad dull coming from the guy behind 1200 acronyms.  
</jeff>

1200? He's past 1584 now!

[Tony]

>>> On 09 November 2001 21:51:44 UTC, Angela wrote:

> 1200? He's past 1584 now!

I will gladly acknowledge being past 50. Anything anyone else says is an overstatement!


ROFL
Roundly Overjoyed (by) Fellow's Language

Have you ever laughed so much you were sick?.....
Retched Onto Floor Laughing
Regurgitated One's 'F'-ing Lunch!  ;-)

[Jeff Anonymous]

Good ones...anyway, my intent was HTML, not XML...they're about the same, both use <tag> and </tag> I guess.

[Angela]

I thought you were probably thinking of HTML, but I said it was XML since those tags are not 'legal' HTML but could be good XML.


>>> On 12 November 2001 16:34:33 UTC, Jeff Anonymous wrote:

Good ones...anyway, my intent was HTML, not XML...they're about the same, both use <tag> and </tag> I guess.

[Jeff]

Oh...I have no XML experience, maybe I should learn it.

[Angela]

I had no XML experience until I suddenly had to write software which would get some from a server and figure out what it meant, with the help of a piece of paper telling me the sort of format it would be in and what the specific tags/attributes which would be in that document meant. I don't think there's really anything to learn as it seems like XML can be whatever you want it to be... just make up your own tags and they can mean whatever you want them to. <blah><something size="7" anger="4" color="orange" nonsense="1000"/></blah>

The only thing you need to know is that a <tag> which doesn't need a </tag> has to have the / at the end of it... <tag/>

You can have some kind of document (I don't know what format that's meant to be in) which describes which tags/attributes are legal in your kind of XML, but you don't have to.

I could be wrong... maybe there's a lot more to it, but it doesn't seem that way. Mac OS X programs usually store their preferences and sometimes other information in XML.