Paragraph = <br> and/or <p></p> I wouldn't think that part would be so difficult.
However... add me to the list of people who believe that auto-cuts are evil. As I see it, a blog is to your own space which is under your control and to be used solely for your own purposes. Every time I've dithered about something on my blog, my friends have swooped in to tell me, "It's your blog. Do with it what you want." Now, yes. There's something to be said for being polite and reader-friendly. But that should be your choice. It certainly shouldn't be imposed by an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all Thou Shalt Cut Thine Entries command. That would not only undermine the essence of blogging as a whole, it would fly directly in the face of Dreamwidth's founding principles as I understand them. As for Twitter... I've yet to grasp the point of it. Except maybe as a broadcast-oriented IM client. More like IRC than a blog. I really don't understand the point of it on a blog. (And I'm really glad that the one person on my LJ flist who set up an RSS feed for her Twitter barely uses the service because... a stream of 140-character LJ posts...) But I don't mind skimming over LoudTwitter posts. Take a glance, see if anything jumps out, move on. Not that big a deal, unless you're talking about someone who tweets and tweets all day. As for cuts in general... I prefer to do my reading on my reading page. If something bores me, I'll scroll past. If I'm only sort of interested or if I think the subject will shift, I'll skim it. But if I'm interested, I'd rather not have to click to follow. I will if I have to. Generally in a new tab, so I don't lose my place. Obviously, opinions differ. Posting styles differ. Reading preferences differ. Heck, all of that differs from one post/subject to the next. One of the things I love about Dreamwidth is that management recognizes that. The idea, as I've seen it, is to make Dreamwidth be as much as it can be to as many people as it can be. Key, then, is options/flexibility. And if the coding that makes that possible is too involved (or, at least, too involved for Beta, where there's so much else to put in place), then I say leave it as it is. Better to default to flexibility than imposing an arbitrary rule. Paul (who tends to leave the other half of his first name off, except for official purposes) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Azalais Aranxta" <[email protected]> To: "Rachel Lee Cherry" <[email protected]> Cc: "dw-discuss" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:02:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [DW Discuss] lj-cuts, twitter?, "this is important" On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Rachel Lee Cherry wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Azalais Aranxta <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Rachel Lee Cherry wrote: > > > > > [significant snippage ahead] > > > > > > What makes a 140-character limit a joke and not a 3-paragraph limit? > > > > Logic. Usability. > > > > > Define a paragraph. hmmm. Honestly, I doubt it would be doable by paragraph or even word limit, it would have to be characters, something the machine could understand; it would therefore have to be enough characters to constitute 3 medium-to-large paragraphs. I don't think it could be at a minimum smaller than the old comment limits, honestly.... **************************************************************** Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy) ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness "I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
