# Styling RSS w XLS notes XML files can include both xml-stylesheets (XSLT) and normal stylesheets (CSS). XSLT files are transformations, and allow you to process an XML doc into an HTML doc (among other things). In this case, it doesn't matter if we import the CSS here or via /rss/rss.xsl -- it gets applied either way. The XSLT will output HTML for us, but the HTML content from the RSS feed (i.e., the bodies of posts) must be unescaped. There's a special attribute (`disable-output-escaping`) which will do that. However, we need to run some JS, too, because not every browser supports decoding html like that. * firefox does not seem to support `disable-output-escaping="yes"`, so it requires the JS in rss.js * chrome does support `disable-output-escaping="yes"`, so don't remove those attrs The JS works by testing `#cometestme`, and then (if needed) looping over elements matching `[name=decodable]` and basically `el.innerHTML = el.textContent`. Note, `disable-output-escaping="yes"` is a legacy feature from XSLT v1.0; the new way to do it is with character maps. When I tried those, they didn't seem to work in firefox (which is when I tried the original JS). IDK if chrome support character maps, but if it does, then that is a good update to implement. TODO I guess. *Freedom* and *Universality* are linked <p>I think freedom and universality must have some deep connection.</p> <p>If you have the <em>freedom</em> to do something, that means -- wrt that context -- you can do whatever you like. You&#39;re <em>unconstrained</em>; that aspect <em>cannot</em> (or at least should not) be a <em>bottleneck</em>.</p> <p>That gives you some unboundedness wrt method, or content, or whatever the freedom relates to. Freedom of speech removes a bound on speech. Freedom of thought removes a bound on thought.</p> <p>Freedom <em>enables</em> universality; and without certain freedoms, you cannot have certain universalities.</p> <p>I thought that freedom and thinking were like orthogonal; both necessary for philosophy and good life, but neither sufficient. Now I suspect there&#39;s more there than I realized.</p> philosophy CF https://forum.xk.io/n/10012