CODE tags

English Forums Feedback
#1

If there is one change I would like to see it’s the addition of the “#” code button for quick reply, perhaps even labelled “CODE”.
Anything that encourages the appropriate use of code tags would have to be a good thing.
( I initially posted this as part of a reply to this thread (http://forums.opensuse.org/english/community/general-chit-chat/450767-im-offended.html) afterwards, I felt the subject may be worthy of discussion, so I started this thread. My apologies for the double post. )

#2

+1.0000000

#3

http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/10933/270548109324362.jpg](http://www.imagebam.com/image/270548109324362)

#4

How does one view the full image that you’ve uploaded? All I get is the thumbnail and no apparent way to see the full image.

#5

For me
I just click the thumbnail

But here you go
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10573557/SUSE%20Misc/code-tags-option.png

#6

Hi Carl, I was thinking along the lines of making the use of CODE tags as simple and obvious as possible for the OP, It would also simplify the explanation needed when requesting the use of these tags.

#7

I’m not sure I full understand what you are suggesting.

  1. A reply button that defaults to code?
    Wouldn’t this be rather problematic

It annoys me that the full editor doesn’t come up and I am forced to exercise my finger even more to get where I want to be. And I raised the issue with Kim, but apparently we are stuck with this ATM

#8
  • 00000001
#9

Doesn’t work for me, the link is not to a HTML page, but a link to the image.

http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/10933/270548109324362.jpg

What dvhenry said, make it easy, like the quote button. I’m also having to go to Advanced too often, like above

#10

@ken_yap
If I right click the thumb and do copy image location. I get:

http://www.imagebam.com/image/270548109324362

I don’t see the problem, except that something is fishy at your end;)

#11

Looks like imagebam.com’s Javascript won’t work in Chrome. Here’s the source of your post.

	<div class="postbody"> 
		
		<div class="postrow"> 
		
		<h2 class="posttitle icon"> 
			<img src="http://forums.opensuse.org/images/icons/icon1.gif" alt="Default" /> Re: CODE tags
		</h2> 
		
				
				
		<div class="content"> 
			<div id="post_message_2261502"> 
				<blockquote class="postcontent restore"> 
					<a onclick="_gaq.push('_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'www.imagebam.com', '/image/270548109324362']);" href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/270548109324362" target="_blank"><a onclick="_gaq.push('_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'thumbnails24.imagebam.com', '/10933/270548109324362.jpg']);" href="http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/10933/270548109324362.jpg" target="_blank">http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/109...8109324362.jpg</a></a> 
				</blockquote> 
			</div> 
 
			
 
 
		</div> 
			
 
                        	
		         
			
 
			
		</div> 
	</div>

Probably their JS is not as portable as they think.

#12

Works for me OK in Chrome

#13

Nonetheless, this looks like dodgy HTML, an <a> nested inside another <a>, so its interpretation by various browsers or even versions of browsers is indeterminate:

<a onclick="_gaq.push('_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'www.imagebam.com', '/image/270548109324362']);" href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/270548109324362" target="_blank"><a onclick="_gaq.push('_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'thumbnails24.imagebam.com', '/10933/270548109324362.jpg']);" href="http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/10933/270548109324362.jpg" target="_blank">http://thumbnails24.imagebam.com/109...8109324362.jpg</a></a>

Only the outer <a> is the correct one.

#14

Dodgy maybe, that’s just come from imagebam.
Nevertheless it works for me and even with my paranoia hat on, I’m not too concerned.

#15

Nonetheless, this looks like dodgy HTML, an <a> nested inside another <a>, so its interpretation by various browsers or even versions of browsers is indeterminate:

Behaviour is ok in firefox…

#16

Well that’s too bad for imagebam because their pasted code won’t work for some browsers, it’s not HTML standard compliant. Next time I see an imagebam link I won’t bother.

#17

You say that
But as I said, Chrome is working for me.

#18

You probably have a different release of Chrome. Mine’s 5.0.375.55.

#19

Mine is
8.0.552.215

#20

Fine, I see that later releases try to do something more in line with non-compliant practice.

It’s still non-compliant HTML though. If this were something that mattered, like some major vendor breaking an important Internet protocol, people would be less indulgent. One has to apply standards uniformly. Breakage is not ok because it’s not some proprietary vendor doing it. It’s not ok for every party equally, even if it’s an OSS project.

BTW this is where it’s prohibited:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2.2