> 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?
The "Entire thread" link in the top navigation bar of the thread page is still broken.
> statically linked executable
I have to disagree with this. It should run in perl too.
>>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.
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.
Oh, and I apologize for indirectly causing you too much trouble with this change.
test2. looks good!
>>216
I remember at least one or two boards on 2ch that used it, though I can't remember which (moon language and such, you see).
I apologize for the dumb question I made at the end of >>218. I forgot that Kareha permasages (not closes) a thread after the limit is exceeded, so there's no need for a hypothetical 1001th post anyway! orz
> Maybe the thread title should be an l50 link?
That's what I've been saying in >>3!
> If anything, the role of capcodes should be minimized or altogether eradicated, in favor of ninja moderation.
It's up to the administration of the site how to use them. I am advocating that if they are used at all (and yes, there are useful instances for this and yes, these are and should be rare) then it would be helpful to be able to differentiate between site owner/admin/supermod/mod/maid/etc
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.
One of the things I did when I modified and restructured the order of functions in post_stuff() was add specific error messages for each non-comment field. Would this be considered superfluous?
test1
Semantical nitpick: shouldn't the "Page top" link be called "Thread list"?
>>327-328
All of this would be better handled by an external application. I think you are putting way too much work into user gimmicks as it is.
More options means putting more buttons, links, etc. into the interface. I am still bothered by the "More options...", but I am just a text purist (doing my fair share of AA, though) anyway, so meh meh... ( ´・ω・`)
It's also more markup when even the existing one isn't working as well as it should.
> Can't this be somewhere else but the post form?
No, because that would be immensely useless and annoying, because nobody would know it's there, and even if they did, they'd have to go somewhere else every time they wanted to post something using a different markup.
Here's a fun little game for you all!
I'm looking into adding support for using HTML markup in addition to WakabaMark, but since most boards use XHTML, I can't just let through any old HTML, and most people can't write well-formed XHTML. Also, I don't want any cross-site scripting going on. So I've tried to write a piece of code that takes any horribly written piece of HTML, sanitizes it by removing all tags and attributes that are not an approved list, checks the attribute values, and turns it into well-formed XML.
Now I'd like to see if anyone can break this. The objective is to get some Javascript onto the page, or making the page break in Firefox (or any other browser that parses XML strictly), or otherwise causing trouble. Have at it!
That would be a bother too.
The one with encoded Javascript that makes you post with fusianasan is cute.
Recapping, here are the things I'd like to see in the final release:
Some nitpicky template adjustments to mode_message in order to more closely resemble 0ch (see http://f17.aaa.livedoor.jp/~zerotest/jikken and http://0ch.mine.nu/jikken):
testing #`abcdef¦
And maybe this: http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1126586277/5
> but when I hit refresh I get the same order.
Browser cache. Try shift-refresh.
It doesn't take a specific range, just >>r30 for 30 random posts.
>>196
Actually, a solution to >> links with static pages is to simply make them reference a certain point on a certain page number for that thread (ie, http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/1129153864/index2.html#197).
>>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.