>>48-50
First of all, I don't believe it would make bumps more valuable in any way. People bump threads all the time with worthless replies since most don't even know what "sage" is or means or what it is good for. They will simply continue to do this, no matter whether the sage function is changed in this way.

Even at this stage, years after its introduction to a major western userbase, people are still clueless about the main basic functions of image- and discussionboards in the Futaba/0ch style. There are some signs of improvement, but they are rare.
I doubt people would be willing or eager to learn a new, different behaviour at this point in time.

The only real change is what >>50 points out (though I want to mention that even that point is mostly misunderstood: if people want to protest against a certain thread, they should post as many sage posts as it needs to get permasaged (although it's arguably counterproductive, considering the default prune behaviour of imgboards). If threads are still bumpable and trolls find that they have been flamed with a sage, they will just bump it once more). And I don't think that's enough to justify a pretty major function change.

PS: I just tested fusianasan + tripcode on 2ch, it works fine.

> Frankly, the combinations of many things into unrelated fields is a design flaw.

I don't think so, not in these cases. What's the alternative? Having a different field for fusianasan, a new checkbox for sage, etc.? That's just cluttering up the interface.

> What if you want to use a name/trip and fusianasan?

Then just make one post with your name/trip and one with fusianasan and let your ID show up in both.
fusiansan is just intended for rare or special cases anyway, as is the whole subject of identification on anonymous message boards.

> What if your email address contains the string 'sage'?

Huh?

> What if you want to sage a thread, but have an ID still?

Then the board has to be configurated to just do that (it already can).

> why should I have to remember something so foreign?

It's rarely needed anyway. Also, these things are pretty easy to remember. "sage" and "fusianasan" is all there is, really.

>>360
Doesn't mean we can't have separate releases for special scripts. :)

Copyright only applies to the literal code, not to features, ideas, or algorithm. Patents do, to some extent, but that's not the issue here. Since I'm not going to write the exact same code, there's little they can do.

If you want to have a look at what the code actually does to dig out flaws, here is the current version:

sub sanitize_html($%)
{
	my ($html,%tags)=@_;
	my (@stack,$clean);
	my $entity_re=qr/&(?!\#[0-9]+;|\#x[0-9a-fA-F]+;|amp;)/;

	while($html=~/(?:([^<]+)|<([^<>]*)>?)/g)
	{
		my ($text,$tag)=($1,$2);

		if($text)
		{
			$text=~s/$entity_re/&amp;/g;
			$text=~s/>/&gt;/g;
			$clean.=$text;
		}
		else
		{
			if($tag=~m!^\s*(/?)\s*([a-z0-9_:\-\.]+)(?:\s+(.*?)|)\s*(/?)\s*$!si)
			{
				my ($closing,$name,$args,$implicit)=($1,lc($2),$3,$4);

				if($tags{$name})
				{
					if($closing)
					{
						if(grep { $_ eq $name } @stack)
						{
							my $entry;

							do {
								$entry=pop @stack;
								$clean.="</$entry>";
							} until $entry eq $name;
						}
					}
					else
					{
						my %args;

						$args=~s/\s/ /sg;

						while($args=~/([a-z0-9_:\-\.]+)(?:\s*=\s*(?:'([^']*?)'|"([^"]*?)"|['"]?([^'" ]*))|)/gi)
						{
							my ($arg,$value)=(lc($1),defined($2)?$2:defined($3)?$3:$4);
							$value=$arg unless defined($value);

							my $type=$tags{$name}{args}{$arg};

							if($type)
							{
								my $passes=1;

								if($type=~/url/i) { $passes=0 unless $value=~/(?:^$protocol_re:|^[^:]+$)/ }
								if($type=~/number/i) { $passes=0 unless $value=~/^[0-9]+$/  }

								if($passes)
								{
									$value=~s/$entity_re/&amp;/g;

									if($value=~/"/) { $value="'$value'" }
									else { $value="\"$value\"" }

									$args{$arg}=$value;
								}
							}
						}

						my $cleanargs=join " ",map { "$_=$args{$_}" } keys %args;

						$implicit="/" if($tags{$name}{empty});

						push @stack,$name unless $implicit;

						$clean.="<$name";
						$clean.=" $cleanargs" if $cleanargs;
						$clean.=" $implicit" if $implicit;
						$clean.=">";
					}
				}
			}
		}
	}

	my $entry;
	while($entry=pop @stack) { $clean.="</$entry>" }

	return $clean;
}

You may want to consider releasing Kareha & Wakaba under some sort of license at this point, just to make sure that the scripts always stay free for people to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_License_Types#Free_software_licenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Hmmm, I just noticed you still allow <a> tags, which would let posters use inline links. Are you gonna keep that?

Text Art's description about auto-linking URLs and >> references is redundant. Not a bad solution with the layout, though (hiding the menu behind "More options..." still bugs me).

Should be fixed now.

> More information on the all threads page, date of the last post? file size?

That might be somewhat useful, I suppose. I'll have a look at it.

> A quote button that puts >>n and puts the post prefixed by > in the reply box

There's already a way to put in >>n. However, quoting an entire post is seldom something you want to do anyway, so I don't think that's worth cluttering up the page with a million buttons for.

> Different secret strings for different functions (e.g. one for ID generation and one for secure tripcodes)

Most admins probably don't get point of the secret string anyway, and asking them to put in several is just too annoying. In retrospect, I'd like to add a second layer of hashing to these, but that'd mean breaking secure trips AGAIN.

> A trigger for turning wakabamark off and one for forcing a monospace font

I've been trying to work out a more elegant solution for this.

>>64
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh? You are not the real >>64!!!

>>231 What would it do?

test2. looks good!

Oh yeah, regarding the CSS selector: HTML dropdowns aren't styleable, and will look like shit. I'll look into using some other trickery for that, though.

> (albeit edge cases)

Which is the crux of the matter - it mostly doesn't matter to the vast majority of users.

> You still end up with no way to link the fusianasan post with the name/trip one without IDs enabled (unless the ID method is known and no secret data is used).

You can use fusianasan with a tripcode, at least on Kareha. I suspect you can on 0ch too, but I haven't checked.

(Lots of stuff in here, click "whole post"!)

> How about listing what dmpk2k or you have done already?

Truth be told, I haven't even looked over his contributions yet. I'm doing some work on Kareha first. He did bandwidth load balancing for Wakaba across several servers, and image file archiving, at least. Plus some proxy checking and other goodies.

> Split threads and posts into separate tables. You're repeating the lasthit and parent column over and over.

Bad idea. Adds a lot of code complexity without adding any new functionality. The current solution is simple and robust.

> Automatic closing and moving of threads that do not get any activity in a certain timeframe (based on average activity frequency of the board)

This is nearly impossible to get right, and I don't think I'm going to try unless someone can think up a reliable algorithm that uses the data that is availble (not much).

> Reintroduction of "Marked for deletion (old)" (it's just handy to have that)

I tried several times, and concluded it wasn't worth the code and database overhead it would take. This feature is relatively easy to implement for Futaba-style post number limited boards (and Futaba implements it really stupidly), but it gets tricky when you have different deletion modes and want to do it right.

> Prune-limit mode that is defined by number of files or size sum of files on a board

Size limit is already implemented. I might add file limit, but I'm not sure it's all that useful, when you already have the size limit.

The rest, I agree with, and I will try to get most of it done. I'm sure there's some more stuff hidden in old threads, though!

I think you're a bit nutty, >>350...

>>9
I mentioned the option because on highly active boards it's helpful to know which threads will be gone in the next few minutes.

>>89

>But the body text is even more important, and that goes at the bottom. So I dunno.

Yeah, I considered this too. I'm mainly suggesting for the sake of convention.

We definitely don't need a separate page for creating new threads (I get bad memories of Shiichan), mainly because it's inconvenient and requires a whole other page for something that really shouldn't. The fact that it'd be at the bottom of the board page already detracts bad posters with itchy trigger fingers. I think most of us have an "End" key on our keyboards, so we don't really have to scroll all the way down anyway. :) Really, the only issue I have with moving the post box to the bottom is that it ruins my personal visualization of new threads falling on top of the "stack of threads" and replies emerging from below the "stack of replies".

In reference to >>90, there's something I see on every 2ch board that is a lot less prevalent in Western counterparts (barring certain 4-ch boards): a rules/disclaimer block at the top, above the thread-list, with links to a newbie guide, site FAQ, and the like. Yes, it may be an annoyance to veterans, but being at the very top means it's most visible to newbies. That way, we don't get a constant influx of people wondering whether or not they need to fill in the Name and Link fields and what the hell sage and tripcodes are.

> but I don't quite see why there should be a "First 100" at the top but not at the bottom.

Probably to avoid clutter and because of the assumption that if you arrive at the bottom of a page, you can do without the "First 100" link. "First 100" seems to be a navigational aid for beginners who are new to the thread, so it makes sense to only have it at the top.

> Put the Entire thread link on the top of the thread, not the bottom.

Well, since the current update has removed almost all links to entire threads, I won't do THAT, but I guess a Last 50 link could be snuck in somewhere... Maybe the thread title should be an l50 link?

A trigger for turning wakabamark off and one for forcing a monospace font

Anyway, test with |

> Also, I'd like to ask exactly how Kareha does automatically generates deletion passwords. I'm guessing it's similar if not identical to how it creates ID session codes with a user's IP.

Actually, no, the Javascript just strings some random numbers and letters together.

> Because it's one of the two requirements for creating a new thread, and it's a lot more important to have a well-defined topic than to fill in your name.

But the body text is even more important, and that goes at the bottom. So I dunno.

>It's more convenient if you want to start a new thread, but for those who don't it's one more form to have to scroll by.

Would it maybe make sense to make a separate thread creation page?