Sep. 7th, 2003
The most hardcore HTML geek post ever
Sep. 7th, 2003 12:22 pmI bet you never heard of these features of HTML. Yes, in every version of HTML up to 4.01,
<UL> <LI>foo <>bar <>baz</> </>
was valid syntax accepted by the W3C's validator!
Don't bother using these tricks. As far as I know, no browser has ever supported all of them (some support one or two), and one of the major purposes of XHTML was to remove them all from the markup specification by switching from SGML to XML as a basis.
My initial introduction to these murky SGML-spawned corners of the language was an old, deadpan-funny rant called "The Dark Side of the HTML", but unfortunately it seems to have gone off to 404-land long ago.
Update: Here it is in Google's cache. I should stress that, given improvements in the standards situation over the past several years, the author's practical conclusions are no longer as applicable as they were.
lj-cut considered harmful
Sep. 7th, 2003 03:02 pmWell, not exactly. But Patrick Nielsen Hayden doesn't like it when he has to click a link to read the rest of an article.
He has some other thoughts about the design of group blogs there, too. LiveJournal is an oddball case in that it's a system of individual blogs that are also loosely bunched together through the friends-page mechanism, which is sort of halfway between a group blog and a syndication aggregator.
Anyway, because of friends pages, there's a certain amount of social pressure on LJ to put really big things behind the lj-cut
tag, thereby causing the annoyance that is bothering Nielsen Hayden. But it occurs to me that people don't tend to get really mad unless you inline such things as big photographs or elaborate quiz doodads; there's much less resistance to just posting long text pieces without the lj-cut
. And it also occurs to me that I tend to get more comments on longer pieces when they're not hidden behind that "Read more..." link.
Any thoughts on your own personal usage guidelines?