I'd open right before the close. Make an empty tag.

Connie, <strike> works for me -- if it's still in when you go edit, then it's being sent to the page. Anything disallowed is stripped server side ... I'll go look in Press and see what I see.

How about we change the boolean to an integer, where zero is success without change, 1 means success and the message was changed, and anything negative is an error?

Will do. That's the philosophy that gave me such error messages as "Missing resource error -39" I'm guessing. Not that it ever helps.

Just a note about strike, since I think Netscape 3 there's been a shortcut for it, just <s>, but that's not on the list.

If you can come up with a formula for fixing bad TDs, then bring it on, but I think it's harder than it seems.

One thing we haven't done is change this:

You may use HTML or quick-edit formatting.

to, say:

You may use HTML or quick-edit formatting. But be careful! Bad code -- links and tables particularly -- can cause big problems.

Another thought, what's the status of the long-link fixer function?

The next project in mind is the bad HREF thing.

Can someone come up with a formula for that which we can translate into a regex? Like what's the formula for:

<a href="blah.html'>test</a> [any bloody code whatsoever including none at all]

so that we can catch it?

That's the philosophy that gave me such error messages as "Missing resource error -39" I'm guessing.

Nope, it's the philosophy that reporting such numbers to the user might help that leads to you seeing them. I recommend we never do that.

Fair enough, but, speaking of that, what's the means by which we tell the user that their post had to be fixed?

When I post now, I just go back to the thread, and not necessarily at the page which contains my post.

What's a polite, technically elegant way to tell people "your post had bad HTML in it and we've fixed it for you?" without disrupting their posting/reading experience or embarassing them in public?

Perhaps we could add another link like "edit" and "delete", perhaps "errors", that could lead to a page where we describe what the errors where and how they were corrected.

I don't know ...

I'm thinking back on worldcrossing -- it just corrects stuff before it renders it, and says not a damned thing. When you go to edit, you get your own faulty text back.

I don't know if the extra link would ever be clicked on.

Now, if you want incentive, we could add an intermediate screen that says "post buggered continue/edit?"

If you had to have one of those in your face every time you bollixed your HTML, you'd learn pretty quick.

Now, if you want incentive, we could add an intermediate screen that says "post buggered continue/edit?"

Gets my vote. Only, you know, with an appropriate quote from an ME show -- "you made an HTML error! Undo it!" or the like...

Gets my vote, too.

t off to eat turkey

screen that says "post buggered continue/edit?"

The continue option is important, so that we don't revive accusations of being "interface fascists."

I think the continue option should be a teeny tiny little button that's never in the same place twice. Why should you continue?

Bad Buffista! No cookie!