El Reg user forum opens to public, HTML for all (mostly) As of now all Reg readers with five or more posts accepted for publication can create topics in our new El Reg forums. We have made this easier to find: the signpost link is in the secondary nav bar on the front page. At the same time we've opened simple HTML formatting to all commenters who have had five posts accepted for …
>Though the conventions I would prefer are those from text email:
And the ones I would prefer are from IBM's GML which use : and . instead of < and > and here's the problem: lots of people have lots of different preferences. Anyone wanna start a count?
I'm guessing the answer will be no (and I'm fine with that), but it'd be better to make this explicit:
Can the allowed <b>, <i>, <em>, <strong> and <strike> include common attributes? For example:
<b style="color: blue;">Blue bold text</b>
<b id="myComment>link this later with #myComment</b>
Also: will the syntax be strict, accepting only "<b>" instead of "<b >"?
For the record, I *do* like the idea.
I do wish El Reg would either get all they are going to do done or stop tweaking the forums. Every time something changes I have to alter my Grease Monkey script to get things working properly in Firefox. Yes; I know Grease Monkey shouldn't be necessary, but c'est la vie. I can live with it but would just like a firm foundation to stand upon.
I'm not entirely sure all these minor tweaks are that beneficial or necessary. I do hope El Reg isn't being slowly sucked down the Web2.0 rabbit hole.
Sorry, El Reg jumped down that rabbit hole a long time ago!
That's why you're able to post a comment here instead of bashing out an email to the author like in the good ol' days. It's that wambly nambly user interaction that web 2.0 was all about.
But at least they do a good job, and don't get carried away like so many other web sites have.
posts?
so I can start doing steganography with html font colour space encoding yet? Some random IEEE paper
OK, thanks for the features, but you can call me old-fashioned. Unless I need to add a link (which I have only found the need for ONCE) I'll stick with standard text. The reason for that is the same as why I loathe Powerpoint and WYSIWYG editing: I focus on content. The day I need embellishment is the day I evidently have no longer anything interesting to say..
So, hello gadgets, but I'll use them sparingly. Unless I want to annoy someone, of course :-)
Good to see that HTML formatting has been granted to all (mostly). I hope that the following formatting will be added to the roadmap:
• the remaining HTML phrase elements (cite, dfn, code, samp, kbd, var, abbr, acronym);
• inline quoting (the q element);
• preformatted text (the pre element);
• fixed width text (the tt element);
• small caps (sadly there is no simple HTML element that provides them; a span element with a particular style attribute would be required);
• the recommendations of the Vulture Central Humour Comprehensibility Committee, found at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/01/the_color_of_irony/ (sorry, at this time I do not meet the prerequisite for hotlinking).
Do the characters used for HTML elements count towards a post’s maximum length?
I shall post a link to your post in our forum wishlist.
But commentards please put your recommendations there - much easier if we have them all in the same place.
Thanks.
I thought the main appeal for BBCode and similar was that it's less trouble to implement safely. If you completely block HTML, and then bring back limited formating through another syntax, it's really easy to make sure you stay in control. If you allow some HTML tags, and especially if you allow attributes, then you have to be much more careful to avoid letting something harmful through.
I certainly don't mean to suggest El Reg isn't up to the job, but for something like a personal blog (if not using a pre-made blog platform) that could be a big advantage.
"HTML is the open standard of the web. Deal with it, bitches."
(Courtesy of the W3C Validator)
Line 112, Column 123: general entity "T" not defined and no default entity…inancial incentives to Verizon and AT&T in the hope of getting them to join Sp…
This is usually a cascading error caused by a an undefined entity reference or use of an unencoded ampersand (&) in an URL or body text. See the previous message for further details.
Line 192, Column 22: reference to non-existent ID "EMAIL" <h4><label for=email>Email</label></h4>
Line 198, Column 22: reference to non-existent ID "PASSWORD" <h4><label for=password>Password</label></h4>
...to be fair, I struggled a lot with ampersands in URLs until I changed my parser to catch these and swap these in and out on the fly. Avoiding them in links entirely also helps. And face it: You were asking for this, El Reg.
Yay! —HTML allowed in forum posts. It's like some kind of 1990s revival! The big question is, have I posted enough wank here, over the years, to be allowed to post a definitely not spammy link to one of my websites...?
Woot! Looks like I have, unless the preview is lying. Go me!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
