1. LX943X=posts & comments of http://1.JotHere.com
2. LX9444=event listings/posts of  Meetup.com & similar event post style LX9STY)
3. LX945F=Ideally many other HTML documents.

LXIHDU=ID of a Term’s (Definition vs particular setting)

1. LXIIA1=Possible assignment includes, from most to least preferred:
   1. LXIIRO=To each new non-reused setting needed, assign a new else replacement ID which is
      1. LXILEX=a fresh ID but with the last 3 characters set to match the definition name (indeed same as used on the definition if that’s good nemonic)
         1. LXILH9=Notable Pro: ID is somewhat usable by itself.
         2. LXILFV=Tiny con: Some conflict risk, but that’s notably with the definition which is easy to check.
         3. LXILKU=Now started doing this, replacing LXIKQQ
      2. LXIIJ7=a fresh standard ID.
         1. LXIIV1=Pro: no conflict possiblity
         2. LXIKS1=Tiny pro: No ID computation.
         3. LXIIKR=Small con: the ID isn’t pretty.
         4. LXIITL=Small con: If a replacement, ID gets a falely new date.
         5. LXIKQQ=Now started doing this, replacing LXII8W. Outdated by LXILKU.
      3. LXIIM3=an increment of the definition ID, by some increment scheme
         1. LXIIW9=Small pro: Don’t need to remember the the mapping between definition and setting, but probably a good idea to have the mapping
         2. LXIK7C=Tiny con: the ID is not as pretty as original, but close.
         3. LXIKAQ=(ID of setting)=(ID of definition)+(setting #,an integer >= 1)
            1. LXIKKQ=Tiny con: conflict possiblity, but only in a series of rapidly generated terms.
   2. LXIIBJ=Make the setting of a term with ID “x” be say “x_setting_1” or “x.1” or other extension of “x”.
      1. LXIIE0=Notable con: Makes IDs which are derived IDs, so longer (bad for formatting, since IDs are of fixed width) & by some ID derivation system.
      2. LXIIHT=Con: Conflicts could happen if the extension ends up wrong or accidentally duplicated.
   3. LXIHIW=The ID for the setting (from say id=”LX3MVS“) is the same as the ID for the definition (from say <a href=”LX3MVS“>…</a>)
      1. LXIHZ0=In this example, I have say HTML code: “<li id=”LX3MVS“><a href=”#LX3MVS”>the</a> <a href=”LX3MVS“>lastMod_version_status</a>=pst…</li>”. .
      2. LXII8W=Currently in effect since say the creation of say title; replaced by LXIKQQ.
      3. LXIHTY=Small pro: HTML can handle this: can distinquish one from the other based on usage (one is a page anchor and the other is a page “file” name) but
      4. LXIHUD=Small con: on this page, specifically in “LX94BQ=term definitions (table)“, it would be handy that the term definition has its own ID as an anchor name, but that’s impossible since in this example and others that anchor ID is already in use by the setting.
      5. LXII1J=Con: it is ugly IMHO to give the setting of a term the same ID as the term code-name/definition, as
         1. LXII3Y=They are closely-related by still different concepts.
         2. LXII4F=Indeed while a term generally-else-ideally has 1 definition, it can can have many settings in some contexts.

1. copying:
   1. lastMod_version_status=pst2012.01.03Tu0311 3.0 released
   2. title=SCALE10x _ Meetup.com groups’ visit http://1.JotHere.com/LX26CM
2. then set its ID to LX93Y7 which is a new ID
3. then remove all that didn’t apply and correct the rest.

1. LXIFII=I just tried <style>th,td,col {display:inline-block;}</style> but sadly IE seems to ignore it and and in Chrome & Firefox, the col-tag settings are then lost.