Except the code was working up until October 1, so why not try to fix what may be a simple problem rather than scrapping it and going to a much less elegant solution?
I don't like vampires. I'm gonna take a stand and say they're not good.
Xander ,'Beneath You'
Buffistas Building a Better Board ++
Do you have problems, concerns, or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
DXMachina - Oct 03, 2005 5:12:05 pm PDT #596 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Eddie - Oct 03, 2005 5:24:57 pm PDT #597 of 4671
Your tag here.
I'm advocating scrapping because the code in place doesn't do what it attempts. It's trying to limit entered dates to ones within the thread's timeframe. The way it's structured, it's still possible to enter dates outside of the timeframe (in some cases).
Secondly, I don't see the value of doing a couple of extra queries on every page view, especially when that control is used relatively infrequently (granted, assumption), for little gain.
Listing all of the months and all of the days is quite straightforward and it doesn't appear that things will go poof if invalid dates are supplied by the user.
§ ita § - Oct 03, 2005 5:26:14 pm PDT #598 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
There are no extra queries on the page view, but thanks for looking out, Eddie.
I'll try debugging the code before I throw it out. I apologise to anyone who's had their browsing broken by this, but I'm unlikely to get to it before this coming Sunday.
Eddie - Oct 04, 2005 4:50:47 pm PDT #599 of 4671
Your tag here.
Suggestion for the Request Queue:
Sometimes in this thread and Buffistechnology, it would be helpful to upload a text file with code (for example) rather than try to format the code so that B.org parses it correctly. There could be a hyperlink next to Mark and Block... possibly View or File? that would display the attached text (unformatted) in another browser window when clicked.
We'd probably want to limit the uploaded file size to maybe 50k. I imagine there are bandwidth and file space and security considerations.
Thoughts?
DXMachina - Oct 04, 2005 5:10:49 pm PDT #600 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Or you could upload the file to yousendit.com, and then include the link in the post.
There are some very good reasons for the posting restrictions we have, mostly based on past abuse noted at other boards. The last thing anyone needs to see is photos of Charlie Daniels showing up in every thread.
dcp - Oct 04, 2005 5:12:29 pm PDT #601 of 4671
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
Would an option to disable html and quick-edit parsing within a post be simpler?
Eddie - Oct 04, 2005 5:23:27 pm PDT #602 of 4671
Your tag here.
Or you could upload the file to yousendit.com, and then include the link in the post.
That works; it hadn't occured to me.
Jon B. - Oct 04, 2005 5:27:13 pm PDT #603 of 4671
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
The last thing anyone needs to see is photos of Charlie Daniels showing up in every thread.
Oh dear. I'd forgotten all about that.
Jesse - Oct 04, 2005 5:28:27 pm PDT #604 of 4671
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Pictures in-thread are different (visual impact-wise) from peoplesforum-style attachments, but I can see it quickly spiraling out of control. A cat on every post!
DXMachina - Oct 04, 2005 5:36:01 pm PDT #605 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Yeah, I was just trying to come up with an example of an egregious abuse, and Charlie was the first thing that came to mind.
The problem with attachments is that we'd have to store them somehow. I think yousendit is a good way to accomplish what Eddie was looking to do, and we don't have to allocate any resources for it to work.