Recent Topics

An HTML checker switch on "write" tab

Started by on Feb 11, 2006 – Contents updated: Feb 11, 2006

Feb 11, 2006 14:57    

Hi there,

I often get "unable to post: go & correct the URL" (or something like that, I use localized version), but my url's are correct. So I ever need to switch off html checker by modify the file, ftp it, publish the post, then RE-modify the file, RE ftp it and that's it.

My idea is: what about a radio button in the write tab like "HTML CHECKER FOR THIS POST: ON/OFF", so, if you want to publish a little post with an "unusual" url you can do it. You can leave it "ON" by default, and only modify if you intend to.

My 2 cent's worth :D What do you think about it?

Francesco

Jul 13, 2006 14:35

Hell of an old post, but do you still require this? If so then I have a 1.8 plugin that does this.

¥

Jul 13, 2006 16:01

I would like it
Sometimes an url in my post is not correct (and I realy don't have any clue why) but it is ok if I delete the URL
It's not only the url in the post itself, but also the URL in the URL-box

Jul 13, 2006 16:15

I still think that more feedback regarding WHAT is causing the problem, would be appropriate for posters.

I came up with some hacks, a while ago, that do just that. I was told that they were going to be added to the core for v1.8 (blueyed), but then Francois shot them down for "security reasons", which were never explained.

Is there not a way to (a) provide more feedback regarding WHAT is failing and WHY? (url, blacklisted word, or invalid scheme) and (b) keep security intact?

Even with such feedback, there are times when the HTML checker just won't pass something that's perfectly XHTML-valid (i.e., fails) and having the back-office capability to "bypass the HTML-checker when saving this post" would be totally appropriate and appreciated.

I want BOTH ... more feedback AND a HTML-checker turner-offer. :D

Jul 13, 2006 17:45

I agree with the general flavor of stk's post here. For BLOGGERS some more feedback on the problem would be appreciated. Did I post what b2evolution thinks is a poorly formed URL? Was it in my "link to" field or the body of my post? Either way, what's the problem with it? Or did I post something that my local antispam list wants to block? If so then tell me AND give me a link to remove that keyword (if I wanted to).

I think a button to bypass xhtml validation before posting isn't the right idea though. AFTER I try to post something the checker deems invalid (for whatever reason) it should tell me what the problem is, possibly offer a corrective action, and finally ask me if I want to bypass it and make my post anyway. This information and ability could/should be tied to the user's group or level, meaning a new blogger doesn't get it, but 'trusted' bloggers do.

For COMMENTS it's a whole different matter. Just tell them "unacceptable comment" and let them deal with it. Most of them are just like me: stupid people with nothing important to say ;)

Jul 13, 2006 17:51

I completely agree with EdB

I even hadn't thought about the thing for commenters..

Offcourse it's only for me - member of the admingroup - that that counts..

Jul 13, 2006 18:40

EdB wrote:

I agree with the general flavor of stk's post here. For BLOGGERS some more feedback on the problem would be appreciated. Did I post what b2evolution thinks is a poorly formed URL? Was it in my "link to" field or the body of my post? Either way, what's the problem with it? Or did I post something that my local antispam list wants to block? If so then tell me AND give me a link to remove that keyword (if I wanted to).

I think a button to bypass xhtml validation before posting isn't the right idea though. AFTER I try to post something the checker deems invalid (for whatever reason) it should tell me what the problem is, possibly offer a corrective action, and finally ask me if I want to bypass it and make my post anyway. This information and ability could/should be tied to the user's group or level, meaning a new blogger doesn't get it, but 'trusted' bloggers do.

8| damn, that'll teach me to drag up an old post :p

¥

Jul 14, 2006 00:57

Don't ask for feedback, unless you're ready for the avalanche that ensues. ;)

I agree with Ed, who agrees with me (in principal). Having the option AFTER failure would be hip ...

Your URL sucks ... here's why ... wanna bypass the html checker and post it anyway? or go back and fix it?

Cool.

Comments are (generally) not nearly as long or complicated as a post and frankly, not worth any bother other than to say ... "failure! Pass GO, do not collect $200, try again."


Form is loading...

CMS software – This forum is powered by b2evolution CMS, a complete engine for your website.