ita deserves kudos! And Orlando Bloom! Or Legolas, whichever she prefers.
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Well done, ita.
I have another brilliant idea. No! Wait! Come back!
User-defined whitefont. tags like (a3.5), and if your Angel watching profile isn't up to Season 3 ep 5 it's whitefonted. Is that workable? I don't know. But it would be groovy.
I don't know about the coding of it, Jim, but I do know that it already awfully hard just to get people to remember to close tags, much less remembering to specify how white-fonty the tag is to be.
User-defined whitefont. tags like (a3.5), and if your Angel watching profile isn't up to Season 3 ep 5 it's whitefonted. Is that workable? I don't know. But it would be groovy.
But wouldn't that mean you'd have to tag virtually everything you post to be effective?
No, just stuff about the latest Buffy/Angel episode in non-NAFDA fora. But yeah, close-tagging is an issue.
WE ARE BACK!
t massive ita-love
Actually, I had an idea during the blackout, while reading the posts at WX (I didn't get in because I didn't want to register for Yet Another Board, and also because I was planning to take a break anyway... and see where I am now): a "Skip" link above each post, close to the "Mark", number, etc. ones. This would make it easier for people to easily skip to the next post, if they see that the current one is written be someone they have... erm, issues with.
Basically, it's a t A NAME HTML link, taking you right to the next post. I think it could be a middle ground between the current setup and a full-fledged MARCIE, which some might consider too agressive.
Wait a minute, wasn't there something about now talking about policy until Monday...? Whoops.
I think it might be massively easier, Paul, on headache and on bandwidth, if people could just scroll.
Yes, but that's already an option now, and apparently it's not enough, judging from the petitions for MARCIE.
What I meant wouldn't take bandwidth at all, because they would be relative links: in HTML, the t A NAME links just take you to another point in the page that you have already downloaded.
Oh, I get it! Yes. I didn't understand, I thought you had meant loading a new page.
God, this cold medicine is the good shit....