4
$\begingroup$

Today I saw an $odd$ $looking$ italicised word in a question title. It turned out that the OP was using double dollars as opposed to the usual stars. So I edited their title. In doing so I discovered three things. Firstly, and I presume that this is by design, the usual Markdown (I think that is the correct word...) stuff doesn't work in the title. Secondly, there is no title preview. And thirdly, rolling back your own edit almost-instantaneously doesn't just ignore the edit, it counts as two edits.

My question is this:

Can something be done about previewing titles? Why is there a preview to the body of the post, but not to the actual title?

(Perhaps I am just missing something?)

$\endgroup$
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

  1. When I click "edit" I see preview of title.

    enter image description here

    and

    enter image description here

  2. Yes, MarkDown doesn't work in titles by design; neither does in-line HTML code. (Many of those work just fine in answers and questions.) But please don't abuse MathJax to get formatting in the titles. In addition to the semantic issue, gratuitous use of MathJax will slow down the website for those on slower computers and slower internet connections.

  3. About the roll back, you may want to post that as a separate feature request.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, right, thanks - I wasn't expecting the actual title to change. So I was missing something! $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 13, 2013 at 11:07
  • $\begingroup$ There's something like this already. I edited a post of André Nicolas last week by mistake, and when I noticed shortly after, I edited again, putting it back the way it was, with an edit summary of "oops". But instead of my two edits, the edit history looks like this. $\endgroup$
    – MJD
    Aug 13, 2013 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729: maybe you should file a separate bug request then. It is strange that rolling back ones own edit is different from reverting an edit by hand. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong
    Aug 14, 2013 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ Haven't you already suggested I do that?!? (I was putting it off until today.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 14, 2013 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 feature-request $\neq$ bug request. What I mean is that in the first case you'd be asking for something not available, in the second, you'd be asking for making consistent the behaviour of the software. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong
    Aug 14, 2013 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ Oh - I think you maybe miss-understood my above comment (although I am not sure how you interpreted it). I don't think I have encountered any bugs in this brief saga. What is they bug meant to be?... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 14, 2013 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 That if you roll-back an edit in the grace period the net effect should be the same as if you manually remove your edit to return it to the state before you edited. As MJD indicated above, manually editing "cancels" the edit. But as you observed in your question, using the roll back function makes it two edits instead. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong
    Aug 14, 2013 at 8:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right, yes, sorry, I seem to have not really read MJDs comment. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 14, 2013 at 8:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .