intertwingly

Ah, but are you willing to serve your pages with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type to browsers that support it (like mine)?

there is small bug in your RSS2 feed generator: it should produce
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1299.wsdl
and not
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/${1299}.wsdl

Doesn't changing the MIME type to application/xhtml+xml mean that ~90% of the humans on the planet can't read your site?

I just surfed to diveintomark from IE6 and got back classic HTML4 - I'm assuming you're doing Accept header magic, yes?

Mark: I have a ways to go before I can do that.

Alek: thanks!  Sharp eyes... I hadn't announced that I was putting WSIL elements into my RSS2 yet...

Don: Mark migrated to HTML 4.  But you already knew that.  ;-)

Mark: actually it wasn't as hard as it appeared.  In fact it was pretty much exactly as you described: case sensitive css and defining styles on the html element instead of the body.

Don: don't worry, I'll be sure to support legacy browsers.  Mark's article covers that too.

You also have to make your scripts use the NS versions of the DOM APIs (createElementNS, etc).

Ian - I'm assuming you mean in general, not specifically on my site?

Ummm, it appears to have 7 errors when I clicked the validation link - mostly to do with the &user in the blogshares link.

:-)

On my worst copy-and-paste days, I think that if anyone did a weblog program that either did validation when an entry was saved, or at the very least built the pages and ran them through an XML parser to be sure they could be parsed, I'd switch no matter what else it did or didn't do. I think Simon's does that, but he's about nine months late releasing his code. Maybe once I stop being so lazy about setting up a personal ping proxy, I'll have it validate my HTML and RSS, too, and send me a nasty email when I screw up.

Phil: my weblog software runs all of my posts through tidy, and every comment through a sanitize script.

Both have preview with spellcheck.

Is that enough to get you to switch? ;-)

I'm completely in favor of there being weblog packages (and any sort of software, for that matter) where if you aren't geek enough to figure it out, you just don't run it. I don't think that everything has to have documentation that starts with the assumption that you don't know how to open a compressed file. But... in this case I'm a long way below the geek bar. A long, long way.

Phil: so what would it take?

Comments, trackback, and search, which makes me wonder what I was thinking installing the common codebase: now I'll have to figure out how to merge in yours myself. Oops. Where's my copy of Python for Dummies?

I'm not sure yet, but I might also require support for a separate excerpt: I started using them in MT mostly so I could punish people using aggregators that don't support content:encoded, but now I rather like being able to have an rss:description that's an actual description, not just crippled content. I'm not sure whether I actually require them, or whether I really want to keep publishing stuff that Radio would call a Story in a weblog. I might be better off calling them stories, and teaching mombo to only grab the excerpt for the weblog.

Phil, when I asked you what it would take... I didn't mean that you had to do it yourself.  ;-)

I'm seriously behind on some real work at the moment, but will get back to holding up my end of the bargain w.r.t the merge RSN.

I do consider separate excerpts an important requirement.