Quixotic Evil

HTML in comments

2006-05-05

I know how tiresome most people find these 'posts about site', but I thought I'd point out that I've put in a beta version of the 'HTML in comments' plugin that Matt has been crying out for. I'll arrange for the comment form to tell you which are allowed.

After posting a comment with HTML in it, check that it looks OK. If it doesn't, you can use the contact form to point it out to me (in case I haven't already noticed).

Update: Yeah, it's rubbish really. It works provided you only include one tag of each kind...

Comments

QE wrote:

Testing i, b <a href="#top" title="Top">a</a> and so on. Also testing improper nesting.

Edit: It now works provided you don't have nested tags or convertible entities (such as " ). I'll get back to the drawing board...

2006-05-05 11:34:12

matt wrote:

Hey, I like, totally appreciate the effort. and are depreciated though. :-)

2006-05-06 13:04:52

QE wrote:

Was that when XHTML 1.1 arrived? I must admit I hadn't looked at anything since XHTML 1.0, and the statement that XHTML 2.0 doesn't intend to be backward compatible doesn't encourage me to be messing around with it now.

I might change the DOCTYPE to 1.1 and see what the validator says, but I doubt I'll get rid of deprecated elements. If it takes a couple of hours writing a search and replace script when I do eventually want to move on, that won't be so bad.

Update: The only changes to make it validate as 1.1 were to take the 'lang="en"' out of the <html> and change 'name="foo"' to 'id="foo"' in bookmark-style <a>. Whether or not it still works in browsers other than this one, I don't know.

2006-05-08 09:55:04

matt wrote:

If you let me know which one is 'this one', I might be able to tell you.

Every time I put my blog through the validator it comes back with about a gazillion (approx.) errors.

www is depreciated too, I'll have you know. See http://no-www.org

2006-05-08 13:31:15

QE wrote:

'This one': It seems fine in Firefox 1.5.0.3 and IE6.0.blah.

The no-www folk are pretty crazy... All my domains are currently in the category that is 'fine by them' but that do not validate as conformant. In principle they are equivalent to Class A (they're actually functionally slightly more practical than Class A).
With users as they are though I think I might stick with what people are used to rather than trying to push the campaign (especially since their validator have put three of my domains on their 'Wall of Shame' even though the mission statement says they're fine with them).

(On the virtual host I use for HTTPS I've also got the problem that I've got a *.domain.tld certificate, so I need to use some or other subdomain or I need to make and sign another.)

On the subject, if you've got enough control you might consider using one of your domains (www. or base) as a redirect for the other. Hosting them as aliased virtual hosts with the same document root can cause trouble with cookies.

[Edited slightly]

2006-05-08 14:40:46

matt wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't have that level of control. I was thinking about it alright, but decided it wasn't worth the hassle.

2006-05-10 11:06:46

Recently...: QE: Yes, I am. I start a new job on Monday, so I may a...; Lyle: Well done. Now, are you still alive? :-P; Tracy: Fantastic. Well Done QE. Will look forward to more...; QE: The full thing comes in at a little over 119,000. ...; Tom: 100000 words eh? Nicely done. Let the editing beg...; QE: @Lyle - Yeah, I'm really pleased with it. I'm talk...; Matt: I didn't even know you could get a platinum medal ...; Lyle: Congrats on the job offer - really pleased to hear...; QE: Thanks guys. One of the interviews was really b...; Matt: Err... Good luck?

HTML in comments

Comments

QE wrote:

matt wrote:

QE wrote:

matt wrote:

QE wrote:

matt wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar

Footer links