I understand about 50% of what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it.

I could explain it in detail with images and code snippets and stuff but I'd need some sort of dedicated web space for that

Ooh, exciting. Any hints for how the changes will look?

As per our prior discussions, I am eager to see your take on "frutiger gothic".

@pixelglade I won't talk about specifics of the layout or colors because all of that might change, but I am looking for something simpler visually than the current layout, where the content feels a little more unbounded and bubbled than the current layout.

@skep I have already desaturated the Windows 2000 desktop and photoshopped some headstones in.

I don't, but it makes sense to me, I vaguely recall that HTML and XML use a similar methodology and XML is basically nothing but made-up tags.

Biggest caveats I can think of would be to not replace semantic tags (which the article mentioned), and your code could be less intuitive for others to interpret (likely not a huge concern)

i don't use them, they feel wrong to me in a way i can't explain

@skep, Yeah the advice is not to replace the semantic tags, which I don't want to do. Problem is, even semantic tags like "section" and "article" can get really vague really fast when you're trying to figure out what is where. And since I insist on doing everything by hand I want my code to be more legible.

@irony-machine The only thing that feel really wrong to me is that you can use emoji (!!!) in them.

I tried this a while ago with a friend and we were stunned that it worked! but I haven't used them so far

really late to the party but i've used custom html tags myself and they work just fine. in fact, i've used them against the spec without any problems - before i redesigned my reviews page, each review was literally a element. no hyphen or anything, so they're not necessary, but you do run the risk of creating conflicts with existing semantic tags and potentially ones that could be added in the future.

ok it turns out neocities doesn't like parsing element-like text. i meant that "each review was literally a [review] element"

I... actually like it, for the most part. I remember you saying you thought it was one of Austen's weaker novels for its fairy-tale-ness, so I imagine it doesn't improve things if you have to trim out all the subtleties to fit it into a 2-hour runtime.

I will agree that the ending scene is really bad. It's so bad. I dread re-watching the movie because I don't want to be subjected to that scene again.

It's mostly that they took out the humor that was in the book and replaced it with their own bad humor. And cut out a lot of plot points to make room for random fancy shots of landscapes and statuary. And everybody was played so flat and subdued that it didn't make sense why any of the characters cared about each other.

Well if you make them hot then they don't need personality. Everyone knows this.

BBC Pride and Prejudice is superior. "Oh, my poor nerves!" Is what Mrs Bennett says when she sees the Kiera Knightly Pride and Prejudice.

Though, some of the casting choices weren't too terrible

I recognize I do actually have to watch that version at some point.

I think they could have gotten away with 5 hours instead of 6, but the BBC is much truer to the spirit of the book. They actually let people be funny and ridiculous.

Thank you! ^-^

That's reasonable, I'll check the mailbox in a couple years