I love it ,too. My only quibble with read new is that I wish it would stay in a thread until you've read all the posts in the thread, rather than jumping around each time you click. But then I suppose it wouldn't actually be Read New. :)
I support the current behavior because it lets you slog through one thread with Next, or keep abreast of the flow of Natter with Read New. But I usually read when Natter is not flowing fast.
What is it about the word "one" that made it disappear when it was "between" the <>s?
Which reminds me, I have a suggestion: how about categorised threads on the front page, non-categorised threads in the Message Center?
Seems logical. Categories help newbies get a mental map of the board, and help you if you decide to just go to the show-specific threads today. When you check for new messages, then you want the newest listed first.
And the real thing that brought me to the thread: the
t center
tags got stripped out of Noumenon "The Quotable Angel: Can I say it? I wanna say it." Sep 22, 2002 8:04:15 am EDT. Is that one of the dangerous tags?
JohnH, if you can get GetWX to work on Phoenix, that would be great. I think on a big new project like this, you never really know if there's a Groundhog Day lurking in the works. Threads with important things in them, like Buffy 1 after Tuesday, it would be nice to threadsuck them just in case. Or maybe there are backups on the server.
We don't need one of those here, Nou. I can pull stuff straight from the DB.
After the first 5 days, I'm still in love. The category thing would be nice, but not essential. I miss spell check, but you'll all just have to live with my typos.
Moving the recs discussion over here -- it would be possible to adapt the link code to do recommendations reasonably easily.
The current link setup is that anyone can add a link, and delete/edit links they've added. Admins can delete/edit all links and create categories.
Is there anything much different that would be needed for fic recs?
What is it about the word "one" that made it disappear when it was "between" the <>s?
It was to stop people putting mischeivous JavaScript into things like links.
You can put
onmouseover="alert('bite me!')"
into a link tag and it will pop up an alert every time the mouse goes over it, for instance.
So the code is "remove any word inside a tag starting with 'on'"
What about the
t center
thing?
So the code is "remove any word inside a tag starting with 'on'"
So, just curious, what did you do to change it? Make it "starting with 'onm'"?
Make it "starting with 'onm'"?
Or I could have made it start with just "om" and it would have been BuddhaScript instead of JavaScript.
No, we just delete it, so their code will just have:
alert('biteme')
in it, which won't do anything.
It's possible it will make some browsers confused, but I don't think so. Browsers just tend to ignore attributes they don't understand.
What if someone tries to link to test ontario link (www.lisgar.on.ca).
Okay -- good. Works.
