Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot HTML 4.01 and CSS

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the welcome-to-2002 dept. 748

After 8 years of my nasty, crufty, hodge podged together HTML, last night we finally switched over to clean HTML 4.01 with a full complement of CSS. While there are a handful of bugs and some lesser used functionality isn't quite done yet, the transition has gone very smoothly. You can use our sourceforge project page to submit bugs and we'd really appreciate the feedback. Thanks to Tim Vroom for putting the HTML in place, Wes Moran for writing the HTML in the first place, and Pudge for writing the code to convert 900k users, 60k stories, and 13 million comments to comply. And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot: some sort of official contest to re-design Slashdot is coming soon, so you can get a head start now.

Response to some reader notes in the forum:

  • There are a handful of validation errors. Some will be fixed in the next day or so. Others are external HTML that is out of our hands. We may never toally validate with zero errors. yes we're comfortable with that.
  • We're not going to XHTML for the same reasons as above- we control almost all of our HTML, but some of it (like the ads, and imports from other sites) just isn't ours to muck about with. We could go to XHTML, and someday we might, but today we're happy to just get to HTML 4.01 and CSS.
  • Light Mode will be back in some form or another. The problem is that light mode served two purposes: Low Bandwidth, and Simplified Design. The later will probably be handled with a CSS theme (we have a handheld theme already). Low Bandwidth is a little trickier, but we will resolve that soon.
  • All of our code is beta tested on and Unfortunately there's always a few issues from those tiny tiny sites and the giant bohemoth that is Slashdot itself.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Kudos on a great upgrade! (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13621191)

I was wondering if there was going to be a story on this. I noticed the upgrade last night. Let me be the first (post? ha ha) to say, "Good job guys!" Yeah. it took you awhile. But better late than never, eh?

And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot:

I was just going to ask if we could get a few more CSS styles like we saw in the Beta. Glad to see you're already on top of it. :-)

I did some testing with a FireFox version I *know* contains the infamous "Slashdot bug". (Not sure if it's corrected in recent versions since I normally use Mozilla or Safari.) As far as I can tell from testing, the bug is completely fixed. Considering the upgrades, one would expect this to be the case, but you can never be too sure.

Last but not least, the "Politics" and "Apple" sections look as nice as ever, but I'm afraid that the other sections look worse than ever. Can we turn off the colors for the other sites until better CSS sheets can be made? (Preferrably ones that don't hurt our eyes?) Yeah, the games section has the full treatment too, but I swear that the shades of purple it uses are causing me to go blind.

An alternative solution to turning off the CSS for the other sections is to provide the front page CSS as a style option on all the pages. That way we could simply shut off the crazy colors without pulling the whole " ->" trick.

Well, that's my 3.14159265 cents worth. Again, good job /team!

Re:Kudos on a great upgrade! (5, Informative)

mfh (56) | about 9 years ago | (#13621288)

I was wondering if there was going to be a story on this.

Me too... I blogged this earlier [] today, and briefly (first impression) journal'd it too [] , and would love to comment now on some more technical aspects of the page now that I've had time to examine it more thoroughly. Kudos to all involved on a very positive step in the right direction!

The CSS is really clean and impressive. I don't have a problem with it at all at this point, but CSS was never really my strong suit so you may want to get a second (thousand) opinion on that.

I have to admit, it's nice to see the page load faster, with fewer visual errors in Firefox. The links and text seems quite a bit nicer. Now I can modify the CSS of the site to make it look however I want on my own system too, so that is certainly a benefit.

I'm sure many will point out that there are lots of errors in the HTML.

You can see for yourself, here [] . That part isn't that important, because once you begin the road to enlightenment, that zen of CSS [] , it's a journey that has no return.

I'm actually quite proud of Slashdot today, even though I merely post here.

I will be far more proud when the new moderation systems come online. Not sure how many of you submitted ideas and had discussions with CmdrTaco on that subject but I had a thread going with him for quite some time last year. Much of what was said was repetitive, geared towards filtering out what he already had considered or someone else had suggested, but he genuinely listened to some of the suggestions that were unique. I wonder what the timeline is on the moderation changes... Taco?

Re:Kudos on a great upgrade! (1, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | about 9 years ago | (#13621354)

I was just going to ask if we could get a few more CSS styles like we saw in the Beta.

Yes - I'd really love to view every page in my favorite one [] , automagically!

Re:Kudos on a great upgrade! (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#13621381)

did some testing with a FireFox version I *know* contains the infamous "Slashdot bug". (Not sure if it's corrected in recent versions since I normally use Mozilla or Safari.)

Well they fixed it for Firefox but they added it in for IE (purposefully probably). I've seen it twice now.

Yawn! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621392)

What a huge disappointment. When I read that there was going to be an upgrade, I expected maybe a better looking site! Times New Roman is it? Give me a break! Green?

Maybe hire a graphics person to improve the look? This really sucks, guys. Baby steps, I guess. Sigh.

Let me be the first to say ... (5, Funny)

YankeeInExile (577704) | about 9 years ago | (#13621194)

I for one, welcome our new Standards Compliant Overlords.

Re:Let me be the first to say ... (5, Funny)

suwain_2 (260792) | about 9 years ago | (#13621215)

Standards Compliant Overloads?



Re:Let me be the first to say ... (2, Funny)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 9 years ago | (#13621346)

Think about it. Slashdot has updated its code. It moves fast, and it's standards compliant.

Face it. The end has come, and IBM will soon fall, as McBride stumbles across a smoking gun and gains control of IBM's board.

We're all doomed. If you're not in the bunker yet, it's probably too late.

Wrong date?! (2, Funny)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | about 9 years ago | (#13621198)

April's Fool day again?

Re:Wrong date?! (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13621216)

It's pretty sad if you haven't noticed anything "different" about Slashdot. For example, when you posted your comment, didn't you notice the nice new interface with the "Edit Comment" title box around it?

April fools indeed.

Re:Wrong date?! (4, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | about 9 years ago | (#13621353)

I noticed that when I was asked to metamoderate this morning, I wasn't given the false promise I'd be more likely to receive mod points.

Better rending in Firefox and less dishonesty! What's not to like?

Re:Wrong date?! (-1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | about 9 years ago | (#13621226)

no just hell freezing over.

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621199)

Ummm... WOW. I don't know what to say... WOW
What kind of news is this anyways?

Nice one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621203)

Well done

Whats wrong? (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about 9 years ago | (#13621204)

Whats wrong with the current design?

Re:Whats wrong? (-1)

plover (150551) | about 9 years ago | (#13621393)

Whats wrong with the current design?

Ooo, ooh, my turn to hurl the trite cliche!

[ check, check, one, two. OK, got it. ]


"You must be new here."

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all the week! Tip your moderators, they work hard for you! Thanks, everyone. Good night!

HTML 4.01?! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621205)

Why not XHTML?

Re:HTML 4.01?! (4, Informative)

dolphinling (720774) | about 9 years ago | (#13621347)

Because. []

Re:HTML 4.01?! (4, Informative)

Freexe (717562) | about 9 years ago | (#13621359)

I let someone else explain this one, but basically you should be using html 4.01 and not xhtml unless you really know what you are doing and have good reason to do so. []

So that is why (1, Interesting)

Misagon (1135) | about 9 years ago | (#13621208)

... slashdot does not work with Netscape 4 when I try it today.

I tried it because of a gnarly bug in Opera, requesting pages from the wrong sites....

Re:So that is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621262)

I had slashdot working fine on Netscape...

Testing process (2, Interesting)

FortKnox (169099) | about 9 years ago | (#13621209)

Why don't you guys have a formal testing process in place for slashcode?

Seriously, its like every Thursday morning its a big test to determine how many '503 Service Unavailable' we will get.

If this was done in a real web app environment, you'd guys wouldn't have your cushy jobs, ya know...

Having said that, I get a 500 error randomly on any post...

Re:Testing process (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13621298)

Why don't you guys have a formal testing process in place for slashcode?

They do. Beta code gets tested here [] before it's put on Slashdot. Now the upgrade process often generates quite a few 503s (since Slashdot is actually down during that time), but it's just a temporary problem.

If you're still getting 500s and 503s, try deleting all your cookies that point to "". Sometimes the upgrades have problems with old cookies.

Re:Testing process (0, Flamebait)

FortKnox (169099) | about 9 years ago | (#13621371)

Granted, THIS change got some testing time, but there are Thursdays when things happen, like not being able to submit replies, or replies are submitted and not seen. Things like that are obviously hardly tested, if tested at all.

Its pretty obvious, in my opinion, that there is no formal testing process, and only when something major is released are they even inclined to ask for testing help.

Re:Testing process (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#13621342)

Why don't you guys have a formal testing process in place for slashcode?

I'd prefer that they worry less about standards compliant code, testing, and other bullshit and instead work on eliminating worthless editorials, duplicate stories, and any number of other far more important issues to make Slashdot better.

It's nice to see that they are working on *something* but it *was* working all those years just fine. It's just been the last two years that Slashdot has gone *really* downhill with stuff that has nothing (or little) to do w/the codebase.

POOPHEADS! (0, Flamebait)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 9 years ago | (#13621210)

Why not have like a, and put these changes there. That way the bleeding-edge travelers will use it and report bugs, while we can use what is current until that is ready? Makes sense to me anyway...

Re:POOPHEADS! (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 9 years ago | (#13621256)

You mean like this site [] that has been acting as the beta site [] for Slashdot?


twoshortplanks (124523) | about 9 years ago | (#13621272)

To a large excent, serves this purpose. We've been getting the basic HTML4.0 bugs for ages now ;-)

I see your point though

Next Time Give Us A Little Heads Ups :) (1)

Real World Stuff (561780) | about 9 years ago | (#13621214)

Faster load. Thank you.

stylin' (2, Insightful)

maharg (182366) | about 9 years ago | (#13621217)

nice one guys !

Thanks a bundle! (3, Informative)

ceeam (39911) | about 9 years ago | (#13621218)

Yes, and for those of us using "Light" slashdot version (it's in "Preferences" - white background etc, _much_ easier to read IMHO) now it looks like a buttload of shit. $(SUBJ). Will it be fixed?

ME TOO! (0, Redundant)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 9 years ago | (#13621287)

I read the light version, I guess the devs forgot all about it


Looks Great (1, Funny)

Omnieiunium (872399) | about 9 years ago | (#13621220)

I just checked this morning and noticed something different looks great. Hell of a lot better then before. Looks a lot cleaner and sleaker. However my only concern is if you included an automated duper-detector. Or is that asking too much?

WOW (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | about 9 years ago | (#13621221)

Very nice guys!

I'm liking this new comment window too. It's much cleaner looking.

Re:WOW (-1, Offtopic)

wandazulu (265281) | about 9 years ago | (#13621274)

Sorry, didn't have anything particular to say..just wanted to try out the new comment window that you mentioned.

WC3 validator == very close (4, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | about 9 years ago | (#13621223)

Although the Slashdot guys have blocked it again, there was a short time this morning where the validator could get through. It showed the main page as validating Ok for the most part, but some of the sidebars (especially the Freshmeat sidebar) as failing miserably. Just looking at the source doesn't give me a headache anymore though, which is a massive improvement.

Re:WC3 validator == very close (2, Interesting)

justforaday (560408) | about 9 years ago | (#13621356)

Using Opera's validate option, it still fails as HTML 4.01 Strict. However, the number of errors are in the low double digits, which is an enormous improvement over the hundreds the old code would give.

Mod points? (0, Offtopic)

golfhakker (837054) | about 9 years ago | (#13621228)

Anyone else have mod points but no option to use them?

Re:Mod points? (2, Funny)

Omnieiunium (872399) | about 9 years ago | (#13621258)

I would mod you up for that comment but...

Re:Mod points? (1)

dreamquick (229454) | about 9 years ago | (#13621401)

Mod points? Check!
Moderate button? Check!

Looks fine to me (until I post which will exclude me from moderating anything in this topic, ho hum)


Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621229)

In Russia, we use XHTML 1.1!

where can i find the stylesheet? (1)

sakura the mc (795726) | about 9 years ago | (#13621232)

where can i find the stylesheet?

Minor point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621237)

Compliment is an expression of praise; complement is the correct word to use.

Re:Minor point (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 9 years ago | (#13621341)

Ha. Learn something new everyday. I didn't even know there was a difference (thought it was those pesky Englishmen trying to spell things weirdly as usual)...

space wasted but pretty (1)

wadiwood (601205) | about 9 years ago | (#13621244)


That must have been as scary as the idea of cleaning the Aegean stables.

On my rendering (dumb old IE 6 something) there is heaps of wasted space and squishing up of comments and subjects on my journal page that used to look better/more space efficent - but I look forward to the challenge of figuring out how to fix it...

Stylesheet? (1)

EyesWideOpen (198253) | about 9 years ago | (#13621246)

So, from where do we "download the stylesheet?"

Re:Stylesheet? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | about 9 years ago | (#13621302)

I recommend you (using Firefox, of course) get the Web Developer extension, and use that to access, edit, and download the stylesheets.

Re:Stylesheet? (3, Informative)

John Napkintosh (140126) | about 9 years ago | (#13621312)

If you don't know how a page is told to use CSS, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621330)

you don't deserve to get the Stylesheet.

Hint: Look in the effing Source....

Re:Stylesheet? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621333)

So, from where do we "download the stylesheet?"

Are you kidding, or just an idiot?

Re:Stylesheet? (5, Informative)

ameoba (173803) | about 9 years ago | (#13621374)

Test Drive (1)

kff322 (752112) | about 9 years ago | (#13621248)

Give ccs a test drive

In firefox (screw you ie users; no slashdot for you!) View>Page Style>Slashdot


In the next 8 years... (1)

RoadWarriorX (522317) | about 9 years ago | (#13621250)


Re:In the next 8 years... (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | about 9 years ago | (#13621331)

XHTML is now 6 years old, and it's only a small transition from Strict HTML, so your prediction is probably correct.

Getting There... (4, Interesting)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | about 9 years ago | (#13621257)

I'm glad to see the improvements. I was surprised to see a couple of the pages loading much faster and my text-size was slightly decreased from the previous version. Looking under the hood, I saw that the move was made. However, there are a few items I noticed (I'll submit to the SF page as appropriate)...

Validator says it's not correct Strict. There are 13 errors. Some areas still have FONT tags and whatnot, but I don't know if those are includes from external sites (and therefore out of /.'s hands).
<font size="3" color="#006666"><b>Search Freshmeat:</b></font><br>
Anyway, I'll be working on an alternate design right quick. I also expect to see a Firefox extension to load up a custom Slashdot stylesheet (and maybe a /. styles database site to find good ones).

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Well, I guess I have the best compliment (4, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | about 9 years ago | (#13621267)

At first glance, it doesn't look any different to me, so you must have done something right.

Except then I hit reply and the post a comment dialog looks a bit different but not bad.

Must have been quite the effort, congrats.

You broke the 'light' mode!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621269)

Please fix. Thanks

close... so close (3, Insightful)

Thng (457255) | about 9 years ago | (#13621271) []

summary: "This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!"

Sure, only 13 on the front page of /. (don't remember how much before) and they all seem relatively minor. Still, sure is better than what it was. Glad to see it. thng

Sleep walking (1)

gustgr (695173) | about 9 years ago | (#13621273)

I wake up about 5 am to take a pee and when I was walking back to my bed I had the idea to check slashdot just to see what was going on. When I saw the new layout I though: "holy sh*t, am I dreaming? I don't remember changing my broswer settings..." and get back to my bad...

Looks good, fellas. (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | about 9 years ago | (#13621278)

I like the larger comment boxes and more efficient use of screen space.

Very sharp.

Cheers to you and your continued efforts! Your work here is valuable beyond what most people comprehend.


That strange noise you hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621279)

is ice flows in hell grinding together. (It's not frozen solid yet - we need Duke Nukem Forever to be relased or Windows thrown open to the world under GPL for that to happen.)

If I may be so bold. (1)

Trevelyan (535381) | about 9 years ago | (#13621280)

Congratulations on getting a working site after such a move

I had noticed the change, since now all the fonts are in bold and huge on my system. It takes a couple of ctrl- to get them down to a normal size. Although minor things like this I imagine will be ironed out in due course.

Braaaaavo... (1)

liangzai (837960) | about 9 years ago | (#13621285)

While I congratulate the TECH site Slashdot for bringing its content into the realms of somewhat standardized code in a time when most sites have -- at last -- switched to Unicode compliance and XHTML (still a last century technology), I put the coffee in the throat when trying to validate the site: []

I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve>:

403 Forbidden

Somebody say... (1)

__int64 (811345) | about 9 years ago | (#13621290)

Boo-Yah Fark!!

Great Job Everyone (1)

mbrod (19122) | about 9 years ago | (#13621294)

I was wondering if there was some documentation on how you all went about doing the conversion? Like more documentation on the CSS work for people to learn from it.

I noticed... (1)

aug24 (38229) | about 9 years ago | (#13621295)

...because Firefox consistently rendered the pages a fraction of a second quicker than I was used to/expecting.

This tells us two things: "CSS is good" and "Justin reads /. too much".


Well (3, Funny)

chrisgeleven (514645) | about 9 years ago | (#13621296)

Time to get on the Duke Nukem watch...

NOT to be picky...why not XHTML? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 9 years ago | (#13621300)

Why did'nt slashdot choose to go directly to XHTML instead?

Great job on the transition!

Welcome, Slashdot! (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | about 9 years ago | (#13621301)

Whoa guys! Welcome to 1999!

Count on 'Em (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#13621305)

Can we get some stats APIs? Like per-story counts of unique repliers (+/- ACs), broken down by point score, with metadata (date/time posted, categories, submitter ID, "author" ID). And links in the story, and comments (per point score)? How about some karma details?

I'd like to see a Slashdotter make an app that shows trends of posting results. And an app that draws networks between posters, destinations, categories, etc. Let's rub Slashdot's soft green underbelly!

A few things to work out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621308)

Looking at the source of the front page (my logged-in version), I can say there's still plenty of little things to be fixed.
I've seen A tags whose HREF value was unquoted (e.g. <a href=http://blahblah>).
There's garbage such as this:
        <div class="details">
        <b>Posted by
        <a href="">CmdrTaco</a>
        on 08:34 AM September 22nd, 2005</b><br>
        <strong>from the <b>just-don't-start-a-stampede</b> dept.</strong>
Note the opening <b>, but no corresponding closer. mixing <b> and <strong> (but isn't <strong> deprecated?). And someone's got a few too many slashes here and there:

<a href="http:////">
        <img src="//" width="104" height="38" alt="Google" title="Google" >

This was just a cursory check. there's probably a lot more to be fixed. But damn, I thought hell had frozen over -- this is a good start!

Yeah. It's a lot harder to use in Links 0.99 now. (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | about 9 years ago | (#13621315)

Links used to show Slashdot colors and frames properly even in text mode on an 80x25 screen (or at least close approximations that were very usable), but now all of the content is strung together vertically, making the site much harder to use.

Time to start playing with site settings, I guess...

Minor bug (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 9 years ago | (#13621321)

This fixes the Firefox bug but adds a minor bug in Konqueror. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page overlaps the search box and button.

I like the new Post Comment page design.

I LIKE IT! What about us Palm users, though? (2, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 9 years ago | (#13621329)

Wow, this looks NICE. You guys needed to go to CSS for a LONG time.

Now, how 'bout taking a cue from AvantSlash [] , and making [] actually work nicely?

AvantSlash is horribly broken, now, due to your changes (although I knew it was coming, and so did they.) So, one of two things needs to happen: the guy behind AvantSlash needs to update it, or you guys need to make the Palm site work.

Great job, works like a glitch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621332)

Great job. The Firefox DOM Inspector let's me analize the structure, and I can hide section with the simple CSS Editor.
By the way does it validate?

Result: Failed validation, 12 errors

Most errors due to the freshmeat bits...

# Error Line 628 column 65: document type does not allow element "BR" here;
..." color="#006666">
The mentioned element is not allowed to appear in the context in which you've placed it; the other mentioned elements are the only ones that are both allowed there and can contain the element mentioned. This might
mean that you need a containing element, or possibly that you've
forgotten to close a previous element. One possible cause for this message is that you have attempted to put a block-level element .

# Error Line 629 column 54: document type does not allow element "INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5", "H6", "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag.

Has anyone noticed that the infamous google site flavored search does not validate against XHTML 1.0 transitional (as in this site [] , link for validator at bottom)?

Was I the only one? (1)

doombob (717921) | about 9 years ago | (#13621337)

When I first pulled up the page, I immediately noticed that they had to be using CSS. Did everyone else notice the CSS change right away, too? I've been trying to figure out why some people can tell right away what makes a site tick without looking at code or anything. Anyway, great job, I love times of transition; They can be so exciting.

Re:Was I the only one? (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | about 9 years ago | (#13621361)

the thing that made me notice was how the underline on links disappears when hovering over them.. as soon as i saw that i knew it was css

of course, if i had tried to post something first i would have known also because of the new Edit Comment style.

How come the main page is still using tables?

Banner AD on FF (1)

fsandford (572423) | about 9 years ago | (#13621338)

I see a banner AD in Firefox, but not in IE. WTF?

Grease it up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621340)

Oh good... now that the presentation involves nice pretty DIVs and CSS, I can finally make that Greasemonkey script I've been wanting without having to pull my hair out. To heck with your layout, I can make it look like whatever I want.

In fact... wouldn't be hard to add some "missing" features such as article moderation, dup removal. Hmm. Could be something there...

Aha! (3, Funny)

GreatDrok (684119) | about 9 years ago | (#13621344)

So that's what is wrong with it. I have been looking at the page all day thinking there was something weird going on and now I know!

It's the End Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621351)

And hell hath frozen over.

Styles - firefox (3, Informative)

hrbrmstr (324215) | about 9 years ago | (#13621355)

Most die-hard firefox users will know this, but since Taco threw down the gauntlet, those mere firefox mortals who wish to muck with the CSS and "win a prize!" can take a look at: Jesse Ruderman's page [] on using local style sheets (good links there) and there's always the style sheet chooser plus [] add on (yeah, the site's in French and I haven't tried that extension in a while since I use Safari mostly, but it should work).

The W3 validator not allowed, upload -- 11 errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621357)

We're getting there

Will it continue to look this good... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 9 years ago | (#13621363)

...once the ads are put back in between the stories and the comments? Or are we going to stick with ads only on the tops of pages?

Slashdot releases slashcode (1)

zegebbers (751020) | about 9 years ago | (#13621364)

Doesn't work well with wireless. Less usable than a nomad. Lame.

(just kidding, although i can't see much difference)

Style sheet question (0, Troll)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 9 years ago | (#13621366)

Is it possible to make my own style sheets and view slashdot with them? Should I save a page and then change the reference to my own style sheet and reload the saved page? Should I not worry about it because the editors will select styles using the same wisdom they use to select headlines?

Well Done. (3, Funny)

feargal (99776) | about 9 years ago | (#13621367)

After eight years, this news website has finally gotten around to using proper HTML.

So, will it be another eight years before this news website gets around to using some proper editors?

Font (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621370)

Everything looks pretty good, except I don't know if I like the new font. Not sure why, just looks funny.

Ahem! (-1, Flamebait)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | about 9 years ago | (#13621372)


I don't come here just to read the top ten articles, you morons!

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on this page to tell me how to get Boing Boing and the rest BACK onto my customized page! I go to Preferences and there's NOTHING!

You are absolute fucking IDIOTS!

Oh, well, I was wasting a lot of time here anyway! Adios, Morons!

Redesign Slashdot? (0, Flamebait)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 9 years ago | (#13621375)

Ooo, ooo, do you think anybody can find a more painful color scheme for the gaming section? Maybe mix some bright neon orange in with the bright neon green. I know the Slashdot editors were trying to get us all to vomit when we viewed it and although it's close, it's still not quite there... sometimes I can view the games section and not barf all over my desk.

Seriously, it's great that you're finally getting around to fixing it, but who the hell chose those offensively ugly color schemes in the first place and what was the purpose behind it? Incompetence, or just spite?

nice edumacation Taco! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13621377)

compliment? nice clown shoes !

still working on that grade 4 equivalency exam??

complement Pronunciation (kmpl-mnt)
a. Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.
b. The quantity or number needed to make up a whole: shelves with a full complement of books.
c. Either of two parts that complete the whole or mutually complete each other.
2. An angle related to another so that the sum of their measures is 90.
3. Grammar A word or words used after a verb to complete a predicate construction; for example, the phrase to eat ice cream in We like to eat ice cream.
4. Music An interval that completes an octave when added to a given interval.
5. The full crew of officers and enlisted personnel required to run a ship.
6. Immunology A complex system of proteins found in normal blood plasma that combines with antibodies to destroy pathogenic bacteria and other foreign cells. Also called alexin.
7. Mathematics & Logic For a universal set, the set of all elements in the set that are not in a specified subset.
8. A complementary color.

broken (1)

abrotman (323016) | about 9 years ago | (#13621378)

badly broken in opera, but who uses opera, i mean .. it's not even beer free .. oh wait! ..

Though still waiting... (-1, Flamebait)

Seraph (9484) | about 9 years ago | (#13621384)

...for the integrated grammar checker?

last night we finally switched over to clean HTML 4.01 with a full compliment of CSS

signs of hope (1)

sammy baby (14909) | about 9 years ago | (#13621386)

Most of the time, if you see a comment about Slashdot and its management somewhere in one of the stories, it's negative. So far, the comments on this story are overwhelmingly positive, if somewhat backhanded. (eg, "Great job! Welcome to the 21st century.")

It's nice to see that we're still capable of recognizing a good thing, even if we're irritated with everything else.

Now, about an automated dupe-checker...

(PS - the reply/submit comment has a substantially different look and feel to it. I like it a lot.)

Good job, very nice (0, Redundant)

mysticgoat (582871) | about 9 years ago | (#13621397)

My compliments to the Slashdot group; they've done a very nice job with this. Standards-compliant HTML and CSS complements Slashdot's content in a sweet way.

Perhaps the article could be edited to bring spelling into compliance with english standards?

DIV soup (1)

68kmac (471061) | about 9 years ago | (#13621399)

Can someone please explain the thinking behind goodies like this:

<div id="slogan">
                News for nerds, stuff that matters

What's with the extra DIVs all over the place? What's wrong with applying the id and class attributes directly, like so:

<h2 id="slogan">
                News for nerds, stuff that matters

This seems to be a common misconception - "going CSS" doesn't mean that you have to wrap everything in a DIV.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?