Minor formatting changes, grammar.

[SirWumpus]

Also Rule 18 License, the License nameand link are not transformed into an HTML link when within a code block.

[xexyl]

It should be possible to do that just fine.

I haven't looked at everything you have done - and probably won't until you're finished - but I am wondering about one thing: empty nor blank.

Why add the nor blank? The two mean the same thing. An empty file is a blank file. If you mean of 0 in file size or no text (actual contents) that is one thing but then maybe that should be clarified. But perhaps not as it should be implied and it doesn't talk about file size?

Just a thought ...

UPDATE 0

Oh I know what you mean now on the not converted to html ... well one of us (Landon or me) can generate the html later on.

Good luck with everything!

[SirWumpus]

Concerning the after-questions I posed and @lcn2 reply see #208 (comment)

When viewing formatted Markdown (by viewer or browser plugin) the link reference [text](link) is not formatted when within a code block (indented or fenced). See screen snip below:

I prefer reading Markdown over HTML (since I can read it as text file or through a viewer) files when possible, so the think the formatting should work for both versions, not just one.

[SirWumpus]

With the proposed change it will look like...

with a clickable link in Markdown viewers.

[xexyl]

Oh yes I know. That's what my update to the comment was about.

I read it in part as the email came through and didn't think about it for a moment until after I posted my comment.

But thanks for clarifying in case! What about the other part?

As for whether or not a title should have a link though: I am not sure because it should be a link itself.

Though I admittedly didn't look at either the way you did it or the recent comments - as you probably are aware I have been finding and fixing critical validation errors in mkiocccentry.

I also have not felt particularly well (for a variety of reasons including medical issues) and I don't want to step on your toes: at least until you've finished 😄

Keep up the important work!

Incidentally I have a thought that will really help with rule 17. As in make it even shorter. I can say more in the issue if you wish but otherwise I can wait (or maybe both).

It would involve updating the FAQ too but that would have to be done by either Landon or me: and the task would probably fall on me. But since I don't think it would take much effort or time I will do it.

Even if there's no update in the rules file the FAQ on it MUST be updated as there have been some significant changes (which might also be a reason for me to work on that rule in particular).

[xexyl]

Incidentally for the rules and guidelines and even entries' remarks: I too in most cases prefer reading the markdown files.

It's much easier on my eyes too plus I can navigate it far easier in vim (with a black background and coloured syntax as I like it).

That being said I know that one of the complaints over the years was the website was not even close to modern.

I should guess that Landon will generate the HTML files after he merges it but if he doesn't have time before I do I will do it.

[xexyl]

Nonetheless why have empty nor blank?

They mean the same thing but perhaps you were trying to say something else?

If so what? Because it's not clear to me what you mean since the way it's worded technically means the same thing.

But this hardly matters right now.

Keep up the good work!

Cheers.

[SirWumpus]

I haven't looked at everything you have done - and probably won't until you're finished

I finished the bulk last night and @lcn2 incorporated much of it (which was pleasing that the effort was worth it). NOW its time for comments, edits, corrections, finger pointing (Look mummy, a doggy), etc.
Just give me time to reply before you fire off more comments (I hate the sensation of drowning).

As for whether or not a title should have a link though: I am not sure because it should be a link itself.

Clarify. I made comment about rule numbers in anchored links in the main Issue #208.

Incidentally I have a thought that will really help with rule 17.

Please see the revised Rule Packaging before commenting. I like the new structure and it still hits all the necessary points along with @lcn2 changes. That was one of more messy ones. Comment in #28 thread.

Nonetheless why have empty nor blank?

C developers make a distinction between an empty string char s[] = "" vs a blank string char t = " \t\t \f" OR /^$/ vs /^[ \t\r\v\n\f]*$/. I think we should make clear we are aware to avoid word games if someone submits a blank not empty remarks.md which would be legal under the old wording.

[lcn2]

Nice catches, thanks @SirWumpus

[xexyl]

I haven't looked at everything you have done - and probably won't until you're finished

I finished the bulk last night and @lcn2 incorporated much of it (which was pleasing that the effort was worth it). NOW its time for comments, edits, corrections, finger pointing (Look mummy, a doggy), etc. Just give me time to reply before you fire off more comments (I hate the sensation of drowning).

As for whether or not a title should have a link though: I am not sure because it should be a link itself.

Clarify. I made comment about rule numbers in anchored links in the main Issue #208.

Incidentally I have a thought that will really help with rule 17.

Please see the revised Rule Packaging before commenting. I like the new structure and it still hits all the necessary points along with @lcn2 changes. That was one of more messy ones. Comment in #28 thread.

Nonetheless why have empty nor blank?

C developers make a distinction between an empty string char s[] = "" vs a blank string char t = " \t\t \f" OR /^$/ vs /^[ \t\r\v\n\f]*$/. I think we should make clear we are aware to avoid word games if someone submits a blank not empty remarks.md which would be legal under the old wording.

Yes I realise that. I am a literal thinker. But those two are still the same thing. A better way to put it would be it must have content. That would imply more than 0 bytes and not whitespace. Blank and empty are synonyms.

[xexyl]

I haven't looked at everything you have done - and probably won't until you're finished

I finished the bulk last night and @lcn2 incorporated much of it (which was pleasing that the effort was worth it). NOW its time for comments, edits, corrections, finger pointing (Look mummy, a doggy), etc. Just give me time to reply before you fire off more comments (I hate the sensation of drowning).

As for whether or not a title should have a link though: I am not sure because it should be a link itself.

Clarify. I made comment about rule numbers in anchored links in the main Issue #208.

I am no longer sure. But I'll hold off until all the edits are done. Then I can make a comment on everything at once.

Appreciate it.

Incidentally I have a thought that will really help with rule 17.

Please see the revised Rule Packaging before commenting. I like the new structure and it still hits all the necessary points along with @lcn2 changes. That was one of more messy ones. Comment in #28 thread.

That's not what I was getting at though. But I'll worry about that later on too.

[xexyl]

I haven't looked at everything you have done - and probably won't until you're finished

I finished the bulk last night and @lcn2 incorporated much of it (which was pleasing that the effort was worth it). NOW its time for comments, edits, corrections, finger pointing (Look mummy, a doggy), etc. Just give me time to reply before you fire off more comments (I hate the sensation of drowning).

As for whether or not a title should have a link though: I am not sure because it should be a link itself.

Clarify. I made comment about rule numbers in anchored links in the main Issue #208.

Incidentally I have a thought that will really help with rule 17.

Please see the revised Rule Packaging before commenting. I like the new structure and it still hits all the necessary points along with @lcn2 changes. That was one of more messy ones. Comment in #28 thread.

Nonetheless why have empty nor blank?

C developers make a distinction between an empty string char s[] = "" vs a blank string char t = " \t\t \f" OR /^$/ vs /^[ \t\r\v\n\f]*$/. I think we should make clear we are aware to avoid word games if someone submits a blank not empty remarks.md which would be legal under the old wording.

Yes I realise that. I am a literal thinker. But those two are still the same thing. A better way to put it would be it must have content. That would imply more than 0 bytes and not whitespace. Blank and empty are synonyms.

... though actually on the note of deliberate misinterpretation I have always thought that it's not enough but there is only so much that can be said.

No matter how it's worded the following would still not be empty and would technically be content: t.

... and I thought of that precisely because I am a literal thinker (not that I can't think figuratively but default to literal thinking).