?

Log in

No account? Create an account
March 24th, 2002 - LiveJournal Development [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Development

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

March 24th, 2002

simple project [Mar. 24th, 2002|02:22 am]
LiveJournal Development
lj_dev
[evan]
[mood |tiredtired]

Anyone wanna figure out why the links on /site/supporters.bml don't work, and figure out how to fix it?
link1 comment|post comment

Hi all! [Mar. 24th, 2002|12:18 pm]
LiveJournal Development

lj_dev

[purpig]
Hi gang... So, is there any need for an ASP programmer? I also use SOME java (not like it's hard to learn.. sheesh) and I do some SQL stuff as well. I also know graphic design, but I'm more of a programmer than a layout person.

I also have an idea for LJ. Making it so that a user can set their journal to be read by only users with accounts, and the ability to create an ignore list that would affect the entire journal. For instance, there's person X who I do not want to have read my journal. So, how would I prevent this? I could make all my entries Friends or Private, but then no one else could read them, either. So, add person X to an ignore list so that way s/he couldn't read the journal. And also have the ability to prevent anon (unlogged in) users to read the journal, since then person X would only have to end their Session to get access to the journal. I see something is similar is done with comments, so I'm figuring it shouldn't be too hard to impliment with the actual entries.

Comments/ideas?

Chris
link8 comments|post comment

Can we possibly get someone interested in trying to fix the problems with friends groups? [Mar. 24th, 2002|05:22 pm]
LiveJournal Development

lj_dev

[ladydiana]
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=lj_support&itemid=209416

Plus http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=42838
link1 comment|post comment

Proposal: BML syntax change [Mar. 24th, 2002|10:24 pm]
LiveJournal Development

lj_dev

[bradfitz]
I'd like to get comments on changing BML's syntax from:

(=FOO=)
(=FOO .. FOO=)

to:
<?FOO?>
<?FOO .. FOO?>

Main advantage:
-- LJ::ehtml is all we need to escape. No LJ::eall crap.
Side advantage:
-- everybody else is doing it (using <? stuff)... PHP, Mason?, etc, etc, etc... it's kinda the accepted server-parse delimiter now. since i don't give a shit what we use, we could change.

Necessary code change: one or two regexps in the BML parser. We could even make it a bmlp.cfg option to accept either or both syntaxes, for the transitional period.

Votes for and against?

Update: We'd keep LJ::ebml, but only use it for times when we want HTML allowed, but not BML. LJ::eall would eventually die.
link16 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | March 24th, 2002 ]
[ go | Previous Day|Next Day ]