New text editor for photo.net forums...yes it's WYSIWYG!

[bernardwest]

<p>same here it's the update that's screwing with things from my end.  I have just deleted my temp internet files

, so i will see what happ

[bernardwest]

<p><strong>This is how it was supposed to look:</strong><br>

same here it's the update that's screwing with things from my end.  I have just deleted my temp internet files, so i will see what happens.</p>

<p>here's an update. let's see how it looks.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>FWIW, here's a brief followup from Firefox.  My last was from IE7.0.  Firefox seems to be working well with the editor.  It doesn't do anything imaginative when I update a modified post.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I hate IE7 so much. It's been nothing but trouble since the moment it showed up.</p>

<p>I have sent the new info to Jin. So we'll see what he finds out.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>The following was update per my previous post, except done in Firefox.</p>

<p>The quick brown fox<br /> jumped over<br /> the lazy dog.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, Firefox works ok for me too. IE7, not so good ;(</p>

[joshroot]

<p>IE7 just gives me headaches every time we try and make a new feature. And I swear we test in it.</p>

<p>Bah. I'm going to bed.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>It works for me!</p>

<p>WT#?!</p>

<p>Is this photo.net?!</p>

<p>Wow!</p>

<p>Into the 21st century!</p>

<p>Keep it up, etc, etc...</p>

[glenn_mabbutt]

<p>Just a note, I'm currently still having the same issues as Bernie - IE7, when I hit submit or update, part of my text gets reformatted (random spaces inserted, sometimes the space between paragraphs gets removed), and sometimes part of my text at the bottom of the post gets eaten (seems to be progressive - eg, if I submit once and view the preview, some text will get eaten, if I hit update again, more text will get eaten).</p>

<p>However, if I then submit my post, used the "edit" link, reinsert everything that's missing and click submit, it seems to post properly.</p>

<p>Also, when I try to use the HTML or insert/edit image buttons, I get a pop-over box with a "404" error in it for both.</p>

<p>Not quite WYSIWYG just yet :p</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Not quite WYSIWYG just yet :p</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, just for people using <em><strong>awful</strong> </em> IE7.</p>

<p>Seriously though, Jin is working on it. I expect we'll have this fixed shortly.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>For some reason, when you pick "html", it won't allow a <center> tag.  Is there a reason for this?</p>

[blakley]

<p>The one additional feature I'd like to have in the button bar is the ability to center or left-justify selected text.</p>

[matthew lies]

<p>Don't know if it just me or what, but when I go to click on the html button or the insert picture button, it tells me 404 Not Found.  I'm running IE7 :) and i've got javascript enabled with all updates.  Sorry if you're already working on this.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As I have used the new functions over the last several days, I have been increasingly pleased by the whole thing. Possibly the only tiny fly in the ointment, more of a gnat really, is that it seems to disable Firefox's spell check as-you-go feature, and that seems to be just a temporary glitch, as we are told.<br /> <br /> Otherwise, I feel the need for a group photo of the programmers and others responsible for the small shrine I have set up in a corner of my office to worship those responsible for this dialectical leap in our editing and correcting mistakes in our posts <em>after</em> hitting the submit button. Somehow, you never see some things until they are already on the board.<br /> However, I just got a note that my edited text contained an unacceptable html function when all I had done was use the rule-through the letters function. I tried again, and the little ruled through ABC button now creates html that is rejected by the posting operation. Hmm. It worked before</p>

<p>Well, I'll still worship the programmers and all. Please give us a group portrait or at least individual names of whom we can thank. ;)<br>

<em>Ad astra per aspera</em></p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>is that it seems to disable Firefox's spell check as-you-go feature, and that seems to be just a temporary glitch, as we are told.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This annoys me as much as it annoys you. I'm working to see what can be done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I just got a note that my edited text contained an unacceptable html function</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like may forums, Photo.net has a set of "naughty" HTML tags that we do not allow. For some reason strikethrough must be on that list. I'll look into it.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Many html tags were removed around the 9/11  and later on many sites as folks vented; folks would post in giant red text with different giant fonts. What html is allowed got truncated because of abuse.<br>

<br />One could ask about a Zorki or a non Leica lens like a LTM Canon 50mm F1.2 on the Greenspun board and folks would go nuts with red text like some huge infraction was done.<br>

<br />On the Greenspun board there was also this test area one could test out html; ie one could start this thread just try out something new.<br>

<br /><a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=HTML+test+forum"> test area one could test out html</a></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>I guess one cannot post a link anymore? :) All I get is a 404 error; using "the world: browser mentrioned above.</p>

<p> So what is the proper way to ; rocket launch sequence to use img src; or a href  now? Before one could choose html or plain text.<br>

Do you know have to hit the html button then type the text and html?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>I guess one cannot post a link anymore? :) All I get is a 404 error; using "the world: browser mentrioned above.</p>

<p> So what is the proper way to ; rocket launch sequence to use img src; or a href  now? Before one could choose html or plain text.<br>

Do you know have to hit the html button then type the text and html?</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Type text, highlight the text, then click the "Insert link" button and paste in the URL to make it a link.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>I have gotten the double post like above on several other threads. Its would be nice to be able to see ones own images one links using img src; and the results to see if the link works; photo loads like the old days. I guess its suppose to work.  I kind of like feel are like back in the hollerith paper card days of computers; and one has moved from IBM to Sperry; and card coding is now abit different. Yea Format F10.4 @FIN @STOP days. or its like one turned off the type on the cards top; and made a few dud cards with extra holes and placed them in the unpunched deck on the keypunch machine.</p>

[bernardwest]

<p>I am getting a new (for me) problem.  If I include a poster's name and date line in a copy of their post and then past this in as a quote, when I go to submit it throws up the illegal HTML tag message.  It goes away when you get rid of name and date part of the copied text.  It would be handy to enable this to legally happen so when you past a quote, you can include who posted it and when it was posted.  Cheers.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Kelly, is there a reason that you insist on using weird browsers instead of the more common internet explorer, firefox, or safari? It's our goal to have as many browsers work fully with photo.net as possible. But given that 95% of the internet world uses the three browsers I listed, those are the ones that are going to get the most of our attention. Something like "the world" browser is not going to get a lot of effort on our part when we could be improving the site for the millions of firefox or IE users.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>If I include a poster's name and date line in a copy of their post and then past this in as a quote, when I go to submit it throws up the illegal HTML tag message.  It goes away when you get rid of name and date part of the copied text.  It would be handy to enable this to legally happen so when you past a quote, you can include who posted it and when it was posted.  Cheers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is because when you simply copy/paste the name off of the page, you are copying a link, not just the name. The system is not set up to deal with that as of yet. One thing at a time.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>But given that 95% of the internet world uses the three browsers I listed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's more like 98% if phones are not included.  I don't know any sites that test more than those three plus Opera.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Hi Josh; I use Firefox about say 80 percent and Opera 20 percent on my zoo of computers at work and IE if a really have to; say microsoft updates.<br>

<br />The home current box I have used for years only has old firefox 1 and somehow doesnt like to want to install 3.0; even with an unistall. I am going to have to sort out its issue to load the more modern 3.0.<br>

<br /> I almost never use IE and am surprised so many still do; its horrible.<br>

<br /> I have used Opera 9.61 because one can purposely not have images load; to quickly got thru a site or thread thats got threads that are say 10 megs of images; like some actually here where folks link bloaded images on one thread.<br>

<br />The version of Opera I use is fairly new; <!--StartFragment --> <th> </th> <a class="mw-redirect" title="Software release" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release"></a>9.62 came out Oct 30 2008; version 10 a couple days ago. I happen to know alot of folks who like opera; and found it abit weird that photo.nets upgrade now cuts out these users from posting.<br>

<br />The reason I mentioned the "the world" browser is it allowed me to log on to photo.net; when the upgrade blocks  old firefox 1.0; old IE6; and 45 day old Opera. its just a work around until I get some other brower updates to work<br>

<br /> Here I purposely run many new and old boxes; with new and old browsers so the web sites I run to sell stuff and deal with customers are easy to use; load quickly; and to discover weird bugs.<br>

<br />Not all my customers have brand new Imacs and Vista  with month old browsers; some have old Netscape; do not have java; do not have flash; do not like to wait if they have dialup. Its just an older philosophy; running a site to sell goods and it loads quickly on dialup and works on normal and weird browsers to.<br>

The issue with my sites might just not running a multiple fill in type progressive jpeg that works on moderns stuff; shows up as a box on older stuff.<br>

<br />Opera mini is used on alot of BBerrys; its alot easier to use than the canned BB browser; the recent upgrade at photo.net seems to not let one log on with Opera Mini anymore.<br>

I have not tried the imac 20" unit yet at the office; or redhat boxes with mozilla and <!--StartFragment --> <em>Konqueror browser</em> ; or googles new browser yet either.  </p>

[joshroot]

<p>Understood.</p>

<p>Well, like I said, we want photo.net to work with as many browsers as possible. But you will inderstand if we use most of our resources on the big three. Especially when we are trying to install new features.</p>