1 balupton Feb 03, 2007 04:06
3 balupton Feb 03, 2007 12:38
Why to both suggestions?
4 yabba Feb 03, 2007 12:55
If you set it to stealth then it doesn't need "ticking" to be a renderer ( the code plugin does that)
Why would you want to invalidate a page ?
¥
5 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:04
Since when did javascript require cdata, and the code that digg gives you is even more invalid...
Ehh... but thats what lazy does... and lazy has been working fine for all my other plugins...
6 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:12
I wouldn't know @ lazy, I always use stealth ;)
Validate this ;)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-UK" lang="en-UK">
<head>
<title>Validation demo</title>
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.write( '<p>Hello world</p>' );
</script>
</body>
</html>
¥
7 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:18
Well i remember blueyed recommending lazy to me back in the 1.6-1.8 days.
For the js, wow well thats dumb.
8 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:20
lol @ dumb ..... like most things in life :p
now wrap it in cdata and validate it ;)
¥
9 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:22
Already done, i will look into stealth vs lazy now.
10 edb Feb 03, 2007 13:29
balupton wrote:
Since when did javascript require cdata, and the code that digg gives you is even more invalid...
Ehh... but thats what lazy does... and lazy has been working fine for all my other plugins...
I dunno squat about cdata, or much else to speak of to be honest, but I've figured out the hard way that something that worked in the good old days of 1.8.* have a high likelyhood of not working in some way in the brave new world of 1.9.*.
Change hurts. I'm gonna re-install 0.8.6 just because I can.
11 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:34
EdB wrote:
Change hurts. I'm gonna re-install 0.8.6 just because I can.
You've become such a rebel since you aquired that genuine lava lamp :p
¥
12 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:38
Change hurts. I'm gonna re-install 0.8.6 just because I can.
But then you couldn't code more ROCKING UNMATCHED PLUGINS THAT RULE THE WORLD ;)
13 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:45
I dunno, anyone who could code a plugin for 0.0.0.0.0.0.8.6 would definately rock!
¥
14 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:46
Yeah they would, but the plugin wouldn't ;)
15 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:47
Who'd care ? Nobody could download the core to test it ;)
¥
16 balupton Feb 03, 2007 13:52
Cept for EdB, because "he can" ;)
17 yabba Feb 03, 2007 13:54
I'm pretty sure he'd claim that it not only worked but it rocked the kasbah and got the most votes from all 0.8.6 users ;)
As an aside, if you've got this much free time you might like to try and work out why [url=http://www.omegadirectory.net/spider.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.balupton.com%2F]this[/url] returns a 404 ;)
¥
18 balupton Feb 03, 2007 14:02
blogs.balupton.com is simply a... virtual location for the real packages.balupton.com/b2evolution/ i have a .htaccess that forwards all requests onto the actual address for me.
But it's just 404ing because i don't have a robots.txt yeah?
And what you doing looking at this stuff anyway? I thought you didn't have that much free time :P
19 yabba Feb 03, 2007 14:07
It's the page that 404's the robots.txt is just "extra info"
Last time I bothered looking this was partially caused by the core ( and specifically linux boxes ), but I never bothered to work out what.
To give you something to compare tom run it against [url=http://www.omegadirectory.net/spider.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waffleson.co.uk%2Findex.php%2F2007%2F01%2F28%2Fsearch_highlight_part_deux]this url[/url]
I'm looking at "this stuff" because I want to get it working huh? ;)
¥
20 balupton Feb 03, 2007 14:18
Well working fine for me just one thing that is wierd is that in the domain for the 404 entry is that there is a . in the front of packages.balupton.com which i believe is the problem... but who knows why that is there :S
21 balupton Feb 04, 2007 00:37
Yabba, yep I was right to use lazy;
http://manual.b2evolution.net/Plugin/apply_rendering
* stealth: gets always used, but not displayed as option
* always: gets always used, and displayed as disabled checkbox
* opt-out: enabled by default, can get unchecked
* opt-in: disabled by default, can get checked
* lazy: checkbox gets displayed, but is disabled. This usually means that the plugin decides it itself (by looking at the content)
* never: cannot get used as a Renderer Plugin
22 balupton Feb 04, 2007 02:44
Fixed it up i needed to use the event ItemApplyAsRenderer
23 blueyed Feb 05, 2007 17:18
balupton wrote:
Well i remember blueyed recommending lazy to me back in the 1.6-1.8 days.
That was useful when items got rendered on every display. This has changed with 1.9 (rendered content gets cached).
I could not find your attached plugin, but if you want to go the "lazy way" with 1.9+, you should hook ItemApplyAsRenderer.
24 balupton Feb 05, 2007 17:20
I could not find your attached plugin, but if you want to go the "lazy way" with 1.9+, you should hook ItemApplyAsRenderer.
Yeah I say that in the post above yours ;)
I removed the attached plugin the problem was solved.
Why don't you just set it to stealth?
Also, you need to wrap your js in CDATA comments otherwise it'll fail validation.
¥