11
Contributors
27
Replies
28
Views
8 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by WaltP
Featured Replies
  • 1
    ~s.o.s~ 2,560   8 Years Ago

    > -- is supposed to be replaced with an escape sequence when it > appears in html code. No it isn't. Read More

0

This is soooo incredibly weird! It looks fine in IE and it's the only thread affected. I don't even know where to begin to debug this.

Everything on the page renders fine except for the breadcrumbs, whose background sorta extends down the length of the page, and the page title doesn't render at all. At first I thought maybe it's due to an illegal character being in the page title so I went ahead and changed it but nope.

It's so weird that it's the ONLY thread that I've ever seen that's been affected?

0

I can confirm that it works fine in IE7, IE8 and Chrome. I wonder if it's some sort of Firefox bug, but if that's the case, I can't for the life of me figure out what is different about this thread compared to all the others. I'm still convinced it has something to do with the page title area though, since the breadcrumbs right above the page title keep looping their background down the page and the page title itself is the only thing that actually doesn't render at all.

0

Since the thread consists of only one post, posted by a mod, I went ahead and soft deleted the thread on a temporary basis to protect the public from rendering issues (I don't want it to be too much of a turn-off from the site).

0

Oh, you're kidding me! Not ANOTHER one! Obviously something is wrong here. How strange ... please, people, help me figure out what is different about these specific threads that makes them not display right while all the others do.

0

Well I figured it out :) I knew it was something having to do with the pagetitle so I tried to figure out what those two threads had in common ... they both had '--' within their titles. Turns out that I had the page title commented out in the HTML code, and the way you comment html is like <!-- this -->. Well ... apparently it's a Firefox bug that if something looks like <!-- this -- this --> then it gets super confused and doesn't know where the comment is supposed to end.

Votes + Comments
happyhoe
Excellent :)
0

Well I figured it out I knew it was something having to do with the pagetitle so I tried to figure out what those two threads had in common ... they both had '--' within their titles. Turns out that I had the page title commented out in the HTML code, and the way you comment html is like <!-- this -->. Well ... apparently it's a Firefox bug that if something looks like <!-- this -- this --> then it gets super confused and doesn't know where the comment is supposed to end.

Good job Dani! :)

0

I'm not so sure about that. PHP has a built-in function to escape html code, and I run everything through it before output. There's no html entity escape code that exists for '--'.

1

> -- is supposed to be replaced with an escape sequence when it
> appears in html code.

No it isn't.

Votes + Comments
I guess you better start quoting others' messages rather than you trade mark ">" sign :P
0

if > appears in html code as something you want displayed, it's supposed to be escaped at &rt; However, when commenting something out, <!-- --> then you don't escape it.

0

Dani, I guess s.o.s was pointing to the post by MidiMagic when he used '>', I don't think he was talking about '>' appearing in HTML code.

0

Dani, I guess s.o.s was pointing to the post by MidiMagic when he used '>',

Yup. For some reason Mod's refuse to use [quote][/quote] tags, they always use 4chan-style > quotes.
But they do give people infractions for not using [code]

[/code] tags...
Go figure :)

0

>For some reason Mod's refuse to use

>tags, they always use 4chan-style > quotes.
I don't know about the others, but I do it out of habit from when I posted to forums that weren't blessed with quote tags, and I don't see the tags as a sufficient improvement to bother switching.

>But they do give people infractions for not using

tags...
That's a different matter altogether, as I'm sure you're aware. :icon_rolleyes:

0

Looks fine to me now on FF 3.0.8

Dani solved the problem as she mentioned only a few post before your own:

Well I figured it out :) I knew it was something having to do with the pagetitle so I tried to figure out what those two threads had in common ... they both had '--' within their titles. Turns out that I had the page title commented out in the HTML code, and the way you comment html is like <!-- this -->.

>But they do give people infractions for not using

tags...
That's a different matter altogether, as I'm sure you're aware. :icon_rolleyes:

Yes I am, and I don't really have problems with not using quote-tags, but on occasion it does get a bit confusing when you don't know who is quoting who, from which post etc.
The quote-tags makes threads easier to read IMO. But I'm getting way too far off topic here ;)

0

>For some reason Mod's refuse to use [quote][/quote] tags
I use them less frequently than other people because

tags are terribly bulky for quoting 1-2 lines. Plus, consider that a lot of us here have a history of using newsgroups and mailing lists, where '>' is the only accepted way of quoting someone.

0

Yup. For some reason Mod's refuse to use tags, they always use 4chan-style > quotes.
But they do give people infractions for not using [code]

[/code] tags...
Go figure :)

Those are two entirely different issues. DaniWeb Rules require code tags and for good reason, but say nothing about quote tags.

0

if > appears in html code as something you want displayed, it's supposed to be escaped at &rt; However, when commenting something out, <!-- --> then you don't escape it.

As already mentioned, I was actually quoting Midi and correcting him. :-)

Yup. For some reason Mod's refuse to use tags, they always use 4chan-style > quotes.
But they do give people infractions for not using [code]

[/code] tags...
Go figure :)

It's much of a bother to actually press the multi-quote button, remove the part from the post which I don't want to quote and then post an answer. Copy pasting the relevant part seems so much easier.

I use them less frequently than other people because [quote] tags are terribly bulky for quoting 1-2 lines. Plus, consider that a lot of us here have a history of using newsgroups and mailing lists, where '>' is the only accepted way of quoting someone.

Also, making multiple posts with each post addressing only a single post is a norm with newsgroup which probably would be considered spamming here. ;-)

Edit: Gah, I just used quote tags!

0
& #45; & #45;

I had to insert spaces to keep DaniWeb from converting the escape codes I wanted to show.

0

Plus, consider that a lot of us here have a history of using newsgroups and mailing lists, where '>' is the only accepted way of quoting someone.

What makes you think that I don't ? :)

It's much of a bother to actually press the multi-quote button, remove the part from the post which I don't want to quote and then post an answer. Copy pasting the relevant part seems so much easier.

You're right, it is a lot easier and I guess that is why so many people use > to quote.

Those are two entirely different issues. DaniWeb Rules require code tags and for good reason, but say nothing about quote tags.

I know that they're two different things according to the rules, but they are both there to improve the readability of the posts right?

I'm not saying that it should be added to the rules or anything, it's not that big of a deal. I'm just trying to point out that quote-tags can improve the readability of a post because you know:
- who is being quoted
- from which post is being quoted

0

I'm just trying to point out that quote-tags can improve the readability of a post because you know:
- who is being quoted
- from which post is being quoted

Not necessarily, as evidenced by the quote in this very post. The vanilla quote tags don't provide any more information than a quotation prefix. If you type the tags manually, as I do, it's tedious to add the who and the where.

0

If you type the tags manually, as I do, it's tedious to add the who and the where.

Good point. I didn't think about it, because I always use the (multi)quote buttons.

0

Not necessarily, as evidenced by the quote in this very post. The vanilla quote tags don't provide any more information than a quotation prefix. If you type the tags manually, as I do, it's tedious to add the who and the where.

Same. I always just type [ q.uote] and [/q.uote]

0

Same. I always just type quote and quote

I just hit Reply w/Quote and let the system add the quote tags with the quotee -- without the spacing or periods.... :icon_wink:

Edited by mike_2000_17: Fixed formatting

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.