mat8iou

I wasn’t looking for a consensus as such (I worded my original message badly in this regard). I was more interested to know if there were any hidden problems or benefits specific to either approach that I hadn’t fully appreciated.

I still don’t quite get why it doesn’t work properly when ‘ <?php require(‘wp-blog-header.php’); ?>’ is included at the start, as I would have thought that this would be the preferred way to set it up.
I saw another post somewhere that implied that the person was having the same problem as a result of that as I was.
I guess it’s probably something simple like a single variable that neds to be over-ridden at the start of the script, but I’ve no idea where to start working out what it is.
There seem to be quite a few versions of the narchives.php file floating about on different sites, none of which seem to be quite the same.

Waited too long to edit my previous post.

I’ve tried a couple of different ways of making it work better with 1.5 – one was to add <?php require('wp-blog-header.php'); ?> to the start of the file, which meant that I could then use <?php get_header(); ?> etc to draw the header & footer & sidebar.
The other thing I tried was using the phpexec plugin to paste the narchives code onto a page – however, the problem that arose with both of these was that it stopped showing all of the posts, & only shows about 10 now.

I’ve no idea about fixing the categories, but I have made the version in Hetta’s post Theme independent, by changing the header, footer & sidebar calls to use the TEMPLATEPATH variable.

eg.
<?php include (TEMPLATEPATH . '/header.php'); ?>

rather than giving the full path to the theme each time.

I’ve made the pronounciation into a image now, as I am certain that if the font gets substituted, some fonts will not have the schwa (upside down e) character for instance. I’ve also set it to link to a more complete definition of the word, which can serve as an introduction to the site (also accessed from the “what is elginism” link on the sidebar) until I have the time to write out a more complete introduction page for the site.
I’ll still have to spend a bit of time thinking about other ways that I might try & incorporate the decorative elements in the layout.

How about never

Have you submitted your site URL to Google? Otherwise it can take some time for it to find it.
https://www.google.co.uk/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl

Thanks for the suggestions.

The gradients were there in the original theme, but I made some of them, particularly the one behind quotes, a lot stronger, as there are a lot of quotes from articles on the site & I felt it was important for them to stand out from the parts that I had written myself.

In terms of the pronounciation, have a look at the site now & tell me if this is what you were meaning. I’m not sure what will happen to this though if some machines don’t have these extended characters in their fonts – possibly it would be better for me to make it part of the bitmap instead.

I’ll have a think about the pattern & other ways I might incorporate it. It was based of part of the original painted decoration of the Parthenon ( A redone version is here, that is a lot clearer.)

I took the categories off (I can’t remember the exact reason why now) but I can see that they do make it easier to use. Thinking back now, I wanted to get them into the same block as search & archive, but kept ended up with a band of white between the two sections within that box, so left them out until I had worked out how to fix the CSS so that this didn’t happen.

Thanks for the input.

The quotes actually change each time you visit the site, but are all similar length & equally relevant so that they don’t alter the layout to much.

Can you explain exactly what you mean about the style on the quotes matching the meta section, as I’m not entirely clear what you mean by this.

It appears to validate fine now after applying the patch from the post you linked to.

Many thanks for the advice.

Thanks for that info. I’ll have a look at the patch when I have time & see if it works – It counds like a better solution than my kludged together attempt anyway.

I emailed the original author my changes & he told me that he had already updated it himself & that it should be available later this week.
I don’t know what is causing your error, but my knowledge of php is very limited & I think it was mostly luck that I managed to get the plugin to work anyway.

Which poll plugin?

If you are referring to the one here: https://www.lesterchan.net/portfolio/programming.php then you are in luck, as yesterday evening I managed to get it to work with 1.5, as I mentioned in another post.

I have managed to get the plugin to work with a bit of fiddling.
You can download a zip with the ammended files from:
https://www.mtaylor.co.uk/temp/wp-polls_050403.zip
Make sure you look through the readme file, as ther are some changes there as well. Other changes are documented at the ends of the source code files.

I hope this works for you.

I have managed to get the plugin to work with a bit of fiddling.
You can download a zip with the ammended files from:
https://www.mtaylor.co.uk/temp/wp-polls_050403.zip
Make sure you look through the readme file, as ther are some changes there as well. Other changes are documented at the ends of the source code files.

I have managed to get the plugin to work with a bit of fiddling.
You can download a zip with the ammended files from:
https://www.mtaylor.co.uk/temp/wp-polls_050403.zip
Make sure you look through the readme file, as ther are some changes there as well. Other changes are documented at the ends of the source code files.

I’ve had a play about & found that the problem I described above only affects certain themes.
By looking at the themes I have managed to avoid this problem.
However – the other problem I have discovered is that when only showing summaries using the more tag, the page no longer validates if you have the tag within a quote, as it spits out errors for each post saying:

start tag was here
end tag for “blockquote” omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified