(June 13th, 2002, 3:52 pm)
OK, one more time...
Admins (generally the same thing as members), can use standard HTML in their posts.
Anyone else, has only four special formatting options: urll, bold, italic and underline.
Bold, italic and underline use ] and [ instead of HTML's > and <, but are otherwise identical to their HTML counterparts.
Hyperlinks can be generated by wrapping the URI in ] and [
See, it's quite simple... :P
(June 13th, 2002, 6:08 pm)
I should mention that your post crashes Internet Explorer. :)
(June 13th, 2002, 6:15 pm)
Also, I notice that regular HTML still isn't enabled for submissions (IMHO, it would be more useful there than in the discussion forum).
(June 14th, 2002, 4:18 am)
Note this post has been edited because of problems in the original content, and thus is not in the timeline of the discussion.
Now then, for the test: Press here to go to the bottom.
PS: I'm not sure if this will work, because of the parameters given to the page....
(June 14th, 2002, 4:24 am)
Ehm... Looks like can use html as well...
Anyway, this is what I tried to post:
</p><p class=prose>Hyperlinks can be generated by wrapping the URI in " target=_new> instead of HTML's > and <, but are otherwise identical to their HTML counterparts.
</p><p class=prose>Hyperlinks can be generated by wrapping the URI in </a> and
Now, more than ever, I recommend that you use this format instead:
/me crosses his fingers for the HTML...
Fixed the HTML output.
(June 14th, 2002, 9:22 am)
and i thought i screwed up with the html over there. what the hell!
and before anyone blames me for being the guy who wanted this thread started, well, this kind of disaster is exactly the thing i was afraid of, so it's best we've found out what the worst case is, and we can start removing the spanners from the works.
looks to me like html in posts is more trouble than it's worth. bold, italic and underline is more than anyone uses often anyway.
and the bracket syntax for URLs is good enough. in fact i think it's better than hellkeepa's html-esque syntax, since it leaves the url visible on the page, thus preserving text inadvertently placed into brackets. you can avoid things like the trouble with the first post by first checking that the suspected URL has no spaces in it before turning it into a link.
what more html do we need in posts? does anyone really want to put images in them? =p
proper, unparsed html should be reserved for submissions, like Ben said, where at least you can go back and change it if anything went wrong. preferably the submission page should have an option where the author can choose whether the php should 'Allow HTML tags and entities' embedded in the text.
(June 14th, 2002, 9:23 am)
i have e hunch hellkeepa left a div open in his post.
let me take care of that...
hope that works.
*edit* not anymore :P
*another edit* sheesh...
(June 14th, 2002, 9:44 am)
They work fine when you use them properly, but trying to explain how to use them is going to screw things up :P
Why do we need HTML in submissions? You have the square bracket syntax for bold, italic and underline...what else do you need for prose?
HTML was speciafically requested for posts, so I enabled it...I originally had it disabled for exactly this reason.
WILL YOU GUYS MAKE UP YOUR MIND :D
(June 14th, 2002, 5:41 pm)
In one of my stories, the Trademark symbol is in heavy use and is somewhat important to the storyline. It's easy to make if HTML is enabled (just use superscript and a small font) but almost impossible otherwise; I have to substitute (TM). I agree with Narain -- HTML as an option for submissions, just brackets in posts.
(June 14th, 2002, 6:34 pm)
On second thought, I could use the character equivalent:
(June 15th, 2002, 4:18 am)
Sorry for forgetting to close that last DIV tag.
To explain a bit better the advantages about the system I described: It allows you to post links which are both long and contains variables.
For example if I were to link to a post in a forum it would require line of it's own, possibly even not work correctly becuase of the special characters in it or in the worst case it could fuck up the URI parser...
Another advantage to it would be that you can put a link in the middle of a sentence, without disrupting the readability.
As for not seeing the URI it leads to, what about your status bar..?
Anyhow, I can recommend that you do what Ben and Narain suggests, and disable HTML posting for the general lot: This will only create problems, as I've just demontrated.
Trust me on this one, I know this because I've tried it. (not here!)
However, you could leave HTML in for Admins and other people that you'd trust, they would probably find it useful.
Another thing you could add is the possibility to edit your own posts, seing as how I could have edited the first post and thus wouldn't be forced to spam. I think that Narain agrees with me as well.
Edit, fixed the missing sentence.
(June 15th, 2002, 9:24 am)
you know, with the kind of crazy html stuffed into this page, the textbox goes invisible until it's clicked on in my IE5. weird.
and yeah, i do agree >:p ... editing posts would be good. or rather, a way to delete your post, if it's causing html trouble or if you just dont like what you said anymore =) ...you can always select and copy the text before deleting it to paste back into the textbox, if you want to edit and not delete.
only the last post of the forum though! we don't want people to go around altering history recklessly ;) ...let's keep that to our timetravel stories. =D
and/or, the admins could be allowed to delete unruly posts wherever they may be. that would be more in line with the post of 'admin', don't you think? 'cause right now, all 'admin' means to tsfe is 'person whose angle brackets are not converted to entities.' :p
btw, i think cgi-based addresses, the ones that contain variables, will work fine in the bracket syntax. none of the cgi symbols (~, ?, =, +, &) is a html special character. oh wait, & starts entities in html... but you should be fine as long as you dont follow a cgi link with a semicolon. =) and besides, if spaces get through the link parser, anything can. ;)
and about what you said, hellkeepa, cruise said html is only allowed for admins, right? it's just that he's been conferring admin rights to everyone in sight =)
btw, your sentence got chopped for some reason. "you can put a link in the"...?
one more thing, so i can stop making the philistinic jargon mistakes i've probably been making, what's the difference between URL and URI?
(June 15th, 2002, 11:23 am)
Indeed, HTML is only allowed for Admins...which is all memebrs (so far), and HellKeepa, 'cos I know he knows what he's doing (usually :P)
Editing is easy enough...it was originally enabled, but I took out because I was being lazy :P I'll put it back in...it's buggin me too, now :P You will only edit your own posts, or Admins can edit anybody's.
(June 15th, 2002, 11:24 am)
Erm...just noticed the JS hack demonstration to the side...thank you HellKeepa :P
(June 16th, 2002, 4:55 am)
Hehe, nothing to thank me for, Cruise: My pleasure! ;-)
But it's not a JS hack, it's "a single DIV tag": Just to show what can be done with so little, after all it was only two lines in this text-box.
Great to see that you'll be adding editing again, have a few things I want to edit myself. ;-þ Things such as the line that was chopped off.. :rolleyes:
Here's what it should be:
Another advantage to it would be that you can put a link in the middle of a sentence, without disrupting the readability.
However, I don't think it'll be much of a problem to allow editing of all posts, on the contrary I think it'll create much less problems than your solution: What would happen if two people would post at almost the same time, where the first one did a gruesome mistake..?
If you want any sort of control over what posts are allowed to be edited I suggest a time-constraint instead, I know of a couple of places where this is implemented and it work quite well.
I'm still convinced that "my" idea is a better one, seeing as there are so many sites which uses semicolons to seperate the variables (most of the big fora does)... However, that is not my main objection to the current model: The main objection is that it's far too easy to either use it by accident, or to use an URI which it does not identify.. What then?
Thanks for the clarification about the HTML & admin issues, I guess I should stop my abusing my rights then.. ;-D
PS: If I've forgotten something I'm sorry, been hopping like mad writing this.. :rolleyes:
(June 16th, 2002, 6:14 am)
yep, them rights are tempting to abuse... ;p
well anyway, thanks for the links. i like the w3c. =)
and about "your" idea, okay, i guess you have a lot more experience about it than i have. so i'll get out of the way and let you and cruise sort it out amongst yourselves.
besides, i was getting tired of this discussion anyway since my textbox keeps disappearing :p
(June 16th, 2002, 8:42 am)
I'll have sometime this afternoon, I'll have a play with all this crap, and see what I can do :D
(June 16th, 2002, 2:12 pm)
Admins should now notice the edit functionality has appeared...
Editing is done "in place", as it were...you'll see what I mean when you click edit, I hope...as part of the testing, I have hopefully fixed all the various funky HTML that was spread about this thread...
I've also changed the url linking from just wrapping in [ and ] to wrapping in and matching closing tag, whcih should minimise funky effects.
If admins want the pretty links, we can still use 'a href'. If users post links, from a paranoia point of view, it's nice to know where they're pointing before you click on 'em, hence the slightly limited form of linking for them...
(June 16th, 2002, 10:23 pm)
Very good! I like the new changes, despite not getting everything I want. But hey, one can compromise a bit. ;-)
The edit function is good as well, but it would have been better if you set an anchor with a name just above it and refer to it via the URI so you'd be taken to it automaticly.
The only reason for my request is that I managed to scroll past the textarea when I tried to edit my post in the middle, and I find it a trifle unneccesary. ;-þ
What do you think, noteworthy propesition?
PS: No need to thank me, just glad to be of some assistance. ;-)
You really should use Opera though, then you wouldn't have to be bothered with bugs like that. :-D (plus it's a whole lot faster and more safe!)
PPS: Shouldn't the new submit button read "Edit" or "Save" instead of "Post"? ;-þ
(June 17th, 2002, 9:15 am)
Yeah, as always, the little details (like wordings of buttons) come once I know the stuff's actually working :P
And, as you should know, I do use Opera...or were you not addressing that comment to me?
I need to brush up on my HTML to link to another page's internal anchor...but yes, that is a good idea if I can work out how to do it.
(June 17th, 2002, 3:56 pm)
Yeah, that's what I thought. After all it's just the same as I do when I make a system, seems to me as the smart choice to make sure everything works OK before adding/fixing those details. ;-)
Hehe, I do know that you are using Opera, Cruise, but I was talking to Narainsbrain just then. :-p
The anchor name link is easy, just make the target like this:
<A NAME="Bottom">This is the bottom</A>
And the link like this:
<A HREF="thread.php#Bottom">Link to bottom</A>
(Just made it into a test, link's in the post which I deleted the content of.) ;-)
(June 18th, 2002, 4:23 am)
/me likes very much. one more word to be changed though: "posting" to "editing as [say] Narainsbrain". still, very very cool!
and hellkeepa, well, i'd love to use a non-M$ browser, but heck you can't see my CSS-form-coolness in Opera, and cruise tells me HRs suck in it too! :p ...CSS is too dear to me to give up... =)
(June 18th, 2002, 9:06 am)
They're not /that/ bad normally...just the big weird one Semi requested for the members view page :P
And strictly speaking, Opera has the most standards compliant CSS implementation. And it's the only one I know of that actually lets you specify your own style-sheet which you can switch to if you wish...a feature I use more than you'd think. It's also faster, and suffers from a lot less security problems.
Oh, and with DA's new tier system, I can browse it with Opera perfectly now...and that was the only reason I ever needed to load up IE.
I think that's probably enough, yes? :P
(June 18th, 2002, 1:36 pm)
But one problem with Opera. If you have no $ you get ads...
(June 18th, 2002, 1:56 pm)
not for much longer :P
(June 18th, 2002, 7:29 pm)
I shall admit that the CSS on your textareas, buttons and textboxes are very nice indeed, and that Opera have a couple of small probs with it's CSS. However, IE has a lot of them too, but we're just too accustomed to them to notice.. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I recommend that you at least try Opera. Not only because of the points raised by Cruise, but also because it's the most configurable and privacy conserned browser you'll ever find! :-) Besides, it comes as a natural thing to surf with all images turned off, because it's so easy to turn them back on! That is not something which you'll discover often: Ease of use, or &User-friendliness& as it's called. :-D
As for the ads, I don't find them that bad: They don't take up much space, and you get to choose yourself if you want to relay any information at all back to their engine. Or if you'd like any special ads you have the option to choose one or more elements, it's not forced upon you as "DoubleClick" does it. :rolleyes: In fact this browser is 100% compliant with the Norwegian laws, laws that spesifically lables spam as illegal (or any other personally targeted commercial)! :-D
Anyway, I'll shut up about it now, I think I made my point. ;-)
One question, what do you mean with this sentence???
just the big weird one Semi requested for the members view page
Hehe, I see you have snipped the code out of my "hack", eh? ;-p
(June 18th, 2002, 9:43 pm)
I think it was something like this:
which doesn't look as good as it does under IE
(June 18th, 2002, 11:59 pm)
OK, now I understand what you're talking about.
But if you ask me I think it looks better in Opera than in IE, was too much "in the face" in IE if you ask me.
Besides, IE doesn't show our little demonstrations correctly, guess that goes to show who's the "better browser". :rolleyes:
(June 19th, 2002, 4:10 am)
'kay, i'm downloading opera now. doesnt hurt to try, eh? and at least i'll find out what the site looks like to you people. :p
and, haha! does everybody know about astalavista? "security related website', hah! those poor shareware developers dont stand a chance! =D
btw, now the fora lists show the latest subject? 'tis cool! ...though prone to get confusing at times, with off-topic subjects like this one. ;p
edited postscript: unfortunately, now the fora list also says Started by Narainsbrain.
Register to post.