images not working in S1
Mar. 9th, 2005 12:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
helenicI've been using customised S1 styles for years now, and have never had this problem before. When creating a new style yesterday (571150; I've made the "friends" one public so you can have a look at the code, and I'm currently using it) I found that none of the lj images were loading - the protected/private images, or the userpics on my friends page. I assumed this was bad code on my part and tried re-writing it, using the same "friendpic" and "img src" code I'd used in my previous style, which didn't have this problem.
When I viewed the source of the broken style, the problem appeared to be that links to lj-specific images (written into the style as %%src%%, or %%cons:img%%/icon_private.gif) were being generated as links in the form http://http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/....
Since the <img src="%%src%%"> is an automatically generated link, how can I affect the way the links are generated?
The most disturbing thing about all this is that when I went into the code for my previous style, which hadn't had this problem this morning when I was checking livejournal, after I saved the style and exited, this problem started happening on my friends page. Not in a "preview style" window, but on my actual livejournal. And when I created a new style based on one of the pre-created LJ S1 styles, didn't edit it at all, and previewed it, there was the same problem.
Which implies it isn't my code that's at fault at all, but something in the livejournal system. However, when I look at other peoples' friends pages, everything's absolutely fine. I've submitted a support request, and glancing through the recent requests it seems a lot of people are having this problem as well.
Any ideas?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2005-03-09 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 12:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:05 pm (UTC)I'm prepared to believe it's a livejournal blip, particularly since other people have noted it. The annoying thing is that it only seems to take effect once you edit a style. When I was making the style last night, when I previewed it I got this error. Then this morning, I was checking my friends page (using my old style) and the userpics worked... until I went into the code of the old style to see where I might be going wrong. After that, it stopped working, even though I hadn't changed anything.
Bah! Still, thanks for replying.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:09 pm (UTC)The fact that going in to your old style to edit it was what caused it to break makes the "LJ have screwed up" theory even more likely. You go in, take a look, it automatically saves your changes (even if you didn't make any) using some new format thingy, and it all goes horribly wrong.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:18 pm (UTC)*poke* *poke*
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:20 pm (UTC)Almost off topic, I could marry that style. It's been so long since I looked at livejournal customisation I was rather worrying about having offered without really thinking to do up a community. It's very very nice indeed.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:31 pm (UTC)I've kinda given up on trying to tweak the style of my LJ, as S2 is such a sod to work out - all I want to do is correct the times to 24hour, and perhaps make the titles larger - and for that I have to create layers and god only knows what else.
So until they improve the S2 manual (i.e.: so that it actually reads in something like english), I'm gonna leave it as it is...
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:44 pm (UTC)You can, I think - or at least I managed it, when I was using S1 (I used Disjointed - looks much like this in fact - Deadjournal have stuck with the old styles :-() - it involved some additional coding in the override, I think - what style base are you using? Will try and dig it out for you, as it is in the Style FAQ somewhere...
no subject
on 2005-03-09 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 02:51 pm (UTC)I hope the problem gets fixed soon, whatever it turns out to be.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 03:28 pm (UTC)Anyway. Will get back to you asap on the bit above.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 06:34 pm (UTC)Anyway, WELL worth sacrificing academic work time for, H. Well worth it. x
no subject
on 2005-03-09 06:44 pm (UTC)I'm glad I did it; it prevented a crash, even if it does mean I'm now even more behind on my dissertation and will have to blag my supervision on Thursday. Still, I don't think it's things like this that are stopping me working - it's much more general stuff. If I was working eight hours a day I'd still have had time to do this, and I'm clearly not, so.
as for the block text: <p align="justify"> in the body of your entry. Although I think G uses <blockquote> (you have to close the tag at the end of the entry: thus </blockquote> which also indents it on either side.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 07:08 pm (UTC)Ok, ok, enough art therapy, good luck working on your dissertation now!
no subject
on 2005-03-09 08:35 pm (UTC)missed the fact that this was a question - I cheated, it's hardcoded. Thus if I want to update I'll have to edit the code in each of the four style templates (lastn, friends, calendar and day, that is), but that just means copying and pasting it three times, and it's worth it to have it, I think :)
no subject
on 2005-03-09 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2005-03-09 10:14 pm (UTC)Procrastination time is never particularly conducive to creativity, so I'd imagine not. Anyway, as I think you've said you find web design therapeutic it can only be a good thing.
How's the essay. Mine's dreadful. Really.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 10:20 pm (UTC)yup. webdesign is perfect art therapy. Small effort for quick results. yay!
My essay is appalling. I can't even find half the bloody birth myths of Apollo and Dionysus, let alone discuss them. And none of the scholarship makes any useful points whatsoever. I'm just going to prat crit what texts I can get my hands on. "The birth myths introduce themes that are central to the representation of the gods, in interesting-ish ways, although not very interesting because otherwise I'd have more to say..." that's my only point so far. They don't even contrast interestingly. Honestly!
Good luck with yours. When's it due in? I have an hour tomorrow to play with this, inbetween MPhil interview and the deadline, and I really don't want to be completely dead for my interview. Argh.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 10:37 pm (UTC)I wish i had something helpful to say re-essay. Reword the question? Though prat crit ALWAYS good. Mine's pretty much a 'list the ways in which a play stages the self in terms of tensions between the individual and society', so I'm basically saying, 'blah, there's no point psychoanalysing characters in plays - let's turn this into a nice analogy of actor/audience and talk about why people are still so 'concerned' with who Hamlet is. And this gives me a neat excuse not to have done much secondary reading except to cuss some guy who wrote a shit essay called 'Hamlet The Man' and show off about how many times I've seen it'. There's all this Althusser biology/culture subjectivity stuff I have to get in though, and I don't know how. it's due in at 4 tomorrow but I have two seminars I really HAVE to go to in the morning. Still, it's not like it's an MPhil interview! Though I really can't imagine you interviewing badly however tired you are. You know your topic back to front and are passionate about it, and I'm sure that's all they're really after at this point.
no subject
on 2005-03-09 11:51 pm (UTC)Plus, I'm lazy, so I'm just going to blame it on LJ for making it a link when I hadn't written it as one.
I apologise for reposting, but the punctuation! my eyes!
on 2005-03-10 12:04 am (UTC)yours sounds pretty interesting. re-writing the question is a good one, especially if you spend the first page ranting about why the implications of the question are irrelevant. And if you can find some poncy scholar to slag off. They like that.
I don't know the MPhil topic back to front! I've read, like, three articles! well, a bit more than that, but I haven't even read The Golden Bough, I've been too busy slagging it off from what I've gleaned is said in it by reading papers from the 90s! I'm terrified that either my thesis has actually been done and I don't know the field well enough to have noticed, or one of my basic principles is actually total nonsense. gaaaah.
As for the essay, I've just written this actual paragraph:
"Conversely, in Callimachus, we find Peneios’ blithe comment: henid' ego: ti perissa? Kalei monon Eilethuian. The emphasis here, to a reader familiar with the Homeric Hymn, falls wryly on monon - there is a pleasing sense of dramatic irony. Thus Callimachus plays the Homeric Hymn off against itself; the reference to Eileithuia draws attention to the presence of the earlier hymn underlying this text, and the differences between them. It is a nod to the educated reader, a layer of narrative missing to those less well-read (such as Peneios; but then he is, after all, a river, and can therefore be forgiven his illiteracy)."
Oh god. I'm going maaaaaad.
no subject
on 2005-03-10 12:09 am (UTC)Re: I apologise for reposting, but the punctuation! my eyes!
on 2005-03-10 02:06 am (UTC)I have discovered that Knowing Nothing is often a very good thing under pressure. You'll go in with a mind as clear as a bell. Honestly! This is an area in which I am wildly optimistic.
I am using 'I' a lot in this essay. This is the prob with theatre. Please be assured that I have just written this:
"'For they are actions that a man might play.
But I have that within which passes show –
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.'
(I.2.76-86)
As an audience member, I have often found this moment shocking, simply in realising that no matter how fathomable Hamlet seems at times, however obvious and inviting it feels to identify with elements of his character and remove those boundaries between actor and observer, Shakespeare is essentially only ‘playing’ with his audience and striking up a different kind of tension; making us aware from Hamlet’s first entrance that his supposed interiority without a centre may all be for show, ultimately superficial except as a ploy to create more interesting theatre. "
AAAAAGH. What utter bullshit. It's all one sentence!
Re: I apologise for reposting, but the punctuation! my eyes!
on 2005-03-10 02:07 am (UTC)