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

¥

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

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

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 ;)

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..

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

¥

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."

The html checker is going to become a plugin (someday), and will run 1st and last, to check html before renderers and after renderers, i'm guessing both will be optional, it's discussed in the todo list here;
http://todo.b2evolution.net/todo.php?title=apply_rendering_or_another_event_before_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1