Log in

No account? Create an account
So, I decided I was going to customize my page - I discovered in the… - The tissue of the Tears of Zorro [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Aug. 2nd, 2005|01:07 am]
[Tags|, ]
[music |System of a Down]

So, I decided I was going to customize my page - I discovered in the FAQs that I could change my comment text even if I was a free member... THEY LIE!

Well, partially, their FAQs are out of date, yes you can changed them, but only if you use the S1 style system. Boy does that suck! So I suddenly discovered the joy of trying to restore the colour scheme that I used to use... this is partially because their labels for what does what are sketchy at best... you'd almost think they don't want you to use the S1 style system :P

Anyway, I have my comment style changed, and my spartan but strangely erotic colour scheme mostly restored, or at least as far as I can tell. I guess my ability to scrutinise html is a good thing. Speaking of which, these bastids don't use xhtml. For some reason I've gone on an xhtml kick... along with a w3c kick (even though, in all likelihood, the netsoc site might fall short of one or two bits... but hopefully not). And I've just found this on boards.ie which is something I was just thinking about.

[User Picture]From: granite_lullaby
2005-08-02 01:48 am (UTC)
This is why my journal's on diary-x. 100% customisability.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ebel
2005-08-02 10:22 am (UTC)
Yeah I broke my colours a while back. You could write some kind of GreaseMonkey script to change the comment text. :)
(Reply) (Thread)
From: lingmops
2005-08-03 08:34 pm (UTC)
XHTML evangilism is a very dirty form of nerdiness....

PS I like the glowing beads :D
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tearsofzorro
2005-08-06 07:49 pm (UTC)
Yes and no... I can see why xhtml is a Good Thing (tm). I just don't have to be evangelical about it.

Basically when it comes to html versus xhtml - html is NOT a subset of xml, but xhtml is.

That means that if you want to read html you need a custom reader/parser. If you want to read xhtml, you just use an xml reader/parser and look out for standard tags. This makes a LOT of things easier. It means you can do fun stuff like embed SVG (another subset of xml) or other xml-based technologies (RSS - but I don't see how you could really embed that) into the xhtml document, and because you're using an xml parser anyway, it won't throw a fit... It'll just look up the required DTD (Document Type Descriptor - the thing that says what the language does and what the valid tags are) and parse it.

If you try and do that with html, you start having to extend your html parser all the time, and even with a plugin system, that just isn't healthy. So, you can use a reader that will parse anything that's done in xml, including xhtml, or you can write a parser that's playing catch-up all the time... Being a lazy programmer, I know which one I'd wanna do.

But at the same time, xhtml evangelism is quite dirty... it's just that the sooner we get off html and onto just xhtml the better... because then there's less bloat in our browsers.

As for glowing beads, I like them too... it was that or materia or elixir.

as in "Gimme elixir" - it's just I don't know how to pluralise elixir :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: lingmops
2005-08-07 03:06 pm (UTC)
It might just be elixer... or elixers... ore...errr.... um...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)