Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: EUOL on September 11, 2006, 03:01:39 PM
-
Linky:
http://www.boekerij.nl/db_index2.htm?$db_imprint_de_boekerij.html
They got permission to use the Martinere cover, I recall, so nothing much new to see here.
-
Yeah, by the way, what’s up with the ‘don't hate me because I'm beautiful’ thing at the bottom of your blog post thing? Was it just to see if anyone would bother decoding it, or, just because you like to make fun of your fans?
-
Heh. Just trying something out. Did you see it in wingdings or in a regular language? Because I wanted to see how other fonts worked when using my livewriter blogging tool.
On my screen, it's written out in a normal font. But you see it as symbols?
In other news, the Dutch link doesn't go straight to the title, unfortunately. I didn't realize that, but there is no perma-link for the elantris page. So, you have to search for it. There's a picture of the title on my website, however, so unless you intend to order a copy in Dutch, that should be good enough.
-
http://www.boekerij.nl/db_titel.asp?9022545229
Try that link instead.
-
Ah, the amazing Ookla. Is there no wonder he cannot perform?
-
EUOL, with the fonts on the web people will only see that font if they have that font installed, if not it will default to what ever the page font is supposed to be.
You have to be careful if you want a wide goup of people to see any special fonts since all computers (Windows, Mac and Nix) only have about the same 6 fonts installed.
-
I have the font installed, and I can't see it on the post. That's what made me curious.
-
I have the font installed, and I can't see it on the post. Â That's what made me curious.
It's one thing to have it installed on your computer, and having it installed on your browser.
-
It's one thing to have it installed on your computer, and having it installed on your browser.
It's one in the same.
It's a Fire Fox issue, that browser doesn't support the <font> tag with the face element since it's outdated in HTML and isn't something that's supposed to be supported in HTML 4.1 but IE supports all Legacy tags.
-
Ah, the amazing Ookla. Â Is there no wonder he cannot perform?
Remember, I am incalculable.
-
It's one in the same.
It's a Fire Fox issue, that browser doesn't support the <font> tag with the face element since it's outdated in HTML and isn't something that's supposed to be supported in HTML 4.1 but IE supports all Legacy tags.
but remember, despite no legacy support whatsoever, Firefox is still "better."
-
I saw wingdings, but I recognized it from me and my friends messing around in elementary school when we were supposed to be typing, so I copied and pasted it and then changed the font.
-
but remember, despite no legacy support whatsoever, Firefox is still "better."
Because Legacy support is stupid and any site that uses such code is stupid and anyone who doesn't use Firefox is stupid. Ya, got to love Mozilla's viral marketing strategy - have all the 14 year olds and people with brain damage market your product for you since you're open source and don't have a marketing budget despite being more or less owned by Google.
-
Aw Sprig...just bitter that you didn't think of it first?
-
Doesn't it just have to do with the doctype description? Firefox has legacy support for things like <font> in how it renders html 4.0 transitional, but not in xhtml 1.0 transitional?
-
True Ookla but xhtml 1.0 transitional should support that tag since it's "transitional", if I were using a strict doctype then I agree it shouldn't be shown. Â Plus you've got the problem of all the people who use dreamweaver and other WYSIWYGs that, even though they generate XHTML doctypes, still use HTML code. Â Again this has to do with SE and my distaste for the rules of the people who create the "standards" and FF incessant need to break the internet. Â IE does it right in my mind here and they shouldn't change no matter what the mindless FF fans say because once the web moves from XHTML to XML/CSS for rendering guess what? The <font> tag is valed again! Who desings a transistional format that removies things that are going to be in the next version if the user wants? (Just a note on XML/CSS it would allow you to name all your tags however you want so you don't have to use any of the tags we use in XHTML/HTML now, or you can it you're choice since you define everything).
-
IE supports the most. And, frankly, it's the most likely to render things properly in my experience. It has fewer restrictions, has more options, and is more versatile.
Firefox... is strict.
Why is Firefox the better browser again?
-
Why is Firefox the better browser again?
Because aliens think so (http://www.sporadicnonsense.com/2006/08/15/firefox-crop-circles/).
-
Phew . . . for a minute I was beginning to think I was human. To think that Firefox is the distinguishing trait!
-
Apparently people with no lives think so too.
-
So, exactly which browser grants people "lives"? Then maybe I can move out of my brother's basement and get a real job. Like maybe working in video games. That would be awesome.
-
I didn't say anything about a browser *granting* lives. It's just apparent that those people have no lives, and they clearly like Firefox.
Sorry, no magic pill to cure being a dork.
-
So, it's not "I use Firefox, therefore I am a dork." Rather, it's "I am a dork, so I gravitate to using Firefox." Makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Most people go through a "rejection" stage where they reject things that are "normal" in an attempt to define themselves as some sort of revolutionary. Often these same people discover that "normal" things are normal because they are most convenient and go back to many of them, admitting that their "rejection" phase was merely some sort of cry for attention.
Some, however, in a bid to continue this rejection phase, because it's so cool, and yet still adopt the "normal" things that are so convenient and make so much sense, have moved on to rejecting those who reject normalness. Thus they villify anyone who rejects "normal" things, like IE.
Rejection of rejecters is a lonely road whose revolutionary adherents revolt against revolt itself.
;)
-
Wow, Skar. I feel very philosomikated now. I'm gonna switch my Firefox to Opera.
-
I feel very... bullcrapped now.