I took a look at that bad URL sitch with Jilli's post. See:
DXMachina "Buffistas Building a Better Board" Mar 31, 2004 8:15:06 pm PST
The good news is that a post only becomes uneditable if the href URL opens with a
single
quote and ends with a
double
quote. If the reverse error is made, it can be edited and corrected by the user. Also, the problem *mostly* self-corrects after another post is made. The original post is still messed up, and part of the user/date stamp of the following post is messed up, but posts after that are perfectly normal and the rest of the page isn't affected.
The bad news is that I have no idea how to fix the problem by redesigning the page. I think we need a code fix, like a regex, to fix any badly formed href URLs that are entered.
One interesting thing about having a ton of newbies around is that they find lots of new and fascinating ways to break the board. In this post,
MFNlaw "The Minearverse: YExpirationDateMV" Apr 4, 2004 1:29:23 pm PDT
The line, "<I am REALLY upset by this. Anything I know about sentence structure seems to have flown out the window.>" was interpreted by the system as an italics tag.
I fixed the post. (edit: And then she did as well, deleting the line. Oh well.)
New Minearverse thread, please. (As I say this, I'm sure it's being created. Because ya'll are fly like that.)
When the Minearverse 'turned over' I was seeing three different post #10,000s (different users and text).
edit: still true. And FWIW, I had post 10,001, and now it's one of the post 10,000s.
And they were separated by 2 seconds each, even. Hmm.
AND they took the place of 9998 and 9999 instead of 10001 and 10002. Hmm again.
Sorry DX... :( I didn't mean to break the board.
ETA: Does this count as a trip into the guac?
-Maria
Minearverse2 has (had) a post 31 of 30.
edit: Minearverse2 seems to be behaving itself now.
Sorry DX... :( I didn't mean to break the board.
ETA: Does this count as a trip into the guac?
Nah, no guac. It was just kind of a weird thing that had never come up before, because fake tags are supposed to be stripped out by the system. I was just surprised that the system interpreted your fake tag as <I>, ignoring the rest of what was inside the brackets.
I was just surprised that the system interpreted your fake tag as <I>, ignoring the rest of what was inside the brackets.
Actually, I'm suprised that it hasn't come up before -- it's normal for browsers to take only the first "word" in a tag if they can't understand what comes afterwards, and <I> is an allowed tag.
