Added a missing <script> tag in an example #8021
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Won't this break the syntax highlighting now? |
|
Now that platform.sh integration is fixed, we can find out for sure :) |
|
Doesn't look that nice:
But we can use |
|
Yep, and I would be cool with doing that |
xabbuh
approved these changes
Jun 15, 2017
|
Thank you Javier. |
xabbuh
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2017
This PR was squashed before being merged into the 2.7 branch (closes #8021). Discussion ---------- Added a missing <script> tag in an example It's obvious that this code is JavaScript ... but to make it consistent with the other example of the article, I propose to add the `<script>` tags to the second example. Close it if you disagree. Thanks! Commits ------- 2323e19 Added a missing <script> tag in an example
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It's obvious that this code is JavaScript ... but to make it consistent with the other example of the article, I propose to add the
<script>tags to the second example. Close it if you disagree. Thanks!