PDA

View Full Version : Original ClubConspiracy Formatting Gone ???


Jimbo
01-22-2008, 05:45 PM
WebMaster:

Original ClubConspiracy Formatting Is Gone ???

None of the formatting is visible. No avatar, icons, embedded pictures, embedded videos, fonts & font sizes, or even URL links. Although some URLs do show, a great majority of them don't. This has to do their expected format, since CC used to provide its own pseudo HTML tags, along w/ standard HTML tags.

So, what should we expect?

Is the original ClubConspiracy HTML formatting gone?

mizfish
01-22-2008, 05:54 PM
hi there :)

the old forum was converted over to vbulletin, because it offers the users so much more. the benefits will be totally worth it long term, and the forum is more stable.

also, i'll be giving the forum a brand new look, to make it feel more like home.

hopefully settling into the new format wont take too long, but if theres anything i can help with, or if you have any questions, please let me know.

take care

susie

Jimbo
01-22-2008, 06:02 PM
Hi, susie

You said "settling into the new format wont take too long".

What do you mean?

The new format you are implementing or changing the “old format” into a “new format”?

In general, could you answer whether is the old HTML formatting along w/ all of the fonts sizing & embedding gone?

mizfish
01-22-2008, 06:06 PM
hi Jimbo,

basically, we changed the older forum type, into a better kind, which is the forum you see now. the change has been made. the only thing left for me to do is to make sure the forum looks cool, (or try to :) )

the vbulletin forum kind that we're now using here is more stable. its mroe reliable, and has more facilities for the user. long term, we hope to see the forum here grow, and many more users come here. the old forum type isnt really as stable to cope with such a demand, or secure. but vbulletin will help it all the way and make it easier for people.

i hope this helps :)

susie

Jimbo
01-22-2008, 06:21 PM
Hi, susie

Unfortunately it doesn’t help much, since a new skin is not going to help how any of the old threads display.

Right now none of my threads display anything but “text”. So they pretty much look like the inside of an HTML page, which, as you know, is not the reason why we use HTML. They look very busy & lousy, & they are pretty much useless.

We want all of the fonts & embedded graphics & videos to show, but right now the “vBulletin engine” is doing a lousy job at best.

Please note that I am NOT blaming you or any staff members for this. I understand this is caused by the new “vBulletin engine” not being able to display any HTML tags.

So what I am asking is whether we are going to be able to display HTML tags & embedded graphics & videos (“as we used to” in CC Xoops) using the new & improved “vBulletin engine” at any time in the future ???

If you can answer that question I’d be thrilled !!!

Thanks.

mizfish
01-22-2008, 06:31 PM
hi Jimbo,

can you give me a couple of example posts with the display problems and one with the vidoe problem?

i dont think we can fix all the video issues. as to allow that kind of scripting is basically leaving the forum open in regards security, but i can add a hack that'll allow for posting of youtube clips. (youtube uses a standard format for their clips, but others vary too greatly to be able to cope with the hack format).

i'll work on trying to make the rest look better though.

thanks

susie

Jimbo
01-22-2008, 07:06 PM
susie,

The following thread contains all of the HTML tags & tricks I have been previously using at CC.

I use a mixture of standard IMG, HREF, URL, BLOCKQUOTE, P, Hn (n=1,2,3), UL, & LI "html" tags w/ a small subset of these equivalent tags that were provided by the CC Xoops engine which also include their FONT & SIZE tags.

The only 2 video formats that I use are the standard embedded YouTube & embedded Google video formats that are widely used all over the Internet.

Embedded YouTube Video Tag
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/__video__code"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/__video__code" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Embedded Google Video Tag
<embed style="width:608px; height:342px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=__video__code&hl=en"></embed>

Also, a lot of the URL links that I used, don’t have a surrounding set of URL tags, & so they default to being displayed as an HTML URL link. So, if you now require a set of surrounding URL or HREF tags & do not allow for a default URL link to being displayed, then someone has to go in and edit each individual link manually & thus surround each default URL link w/ a corresponding set of URL or HREF tags. So you would need to allow me to go in & edit my threads, or if you had a global fix, then that would be that much easier for everyone – just a suggestion.

So, although I don't use that many different HTML tags in reality, their power is obvious. And so you can understand my disappointment & frustration.

Here is the thread...

The Official Ron Paul President 2008 Campaign Trail- Thread
http://clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46955#post46955

Thank you in advanced for all of your help & your involvement.

mizfish
01-22-2008, 07:39 PM
hi Jimbo,

leave it with me, i'll see about adding the extra commands in as bbcode.

susie

mizfish
01-22-2008, 07:46 PM
ok, here's the youtube one.

using the square brackets ][ enter "youtube" then the identifier:

eg - B7MiOB2xcFo

sample post:

B7MiOB2xcFo


B7MiOB2xcFo


i'll work on the rest in the morning (its 1.45am here)

if you have time, can you give me a list of all the commands that dont currently work, such as the size=xx-large one. so that i can make sure to add them.

thanks
susie

Jimbo
01-22-2008, 09:14 PM
NOTE: Please don’t take any of my comments personally, since I am just letting you know how I feel. By them I am not implying anything else about you, your staff, or this world in general.

//
// Font Sizes
//

__text__
__text__
__text__
__text__
__text__

//
// Untagged URL Link (sort of like a Bastard URL Link)
//
http://__any_url_link_without_enclosing_tags_

Although the above link seems to want to become a URL, which we have to admit is very admirable for such a lifeless thing, the same style links in my thread do not. Is this a "conspiracy" ???

Providing a fix for these tags would allow my threads to be displayed w/o editing. So rather than in some cases just creating an alternative PHP tag, which is obviously the simple & easy way out, the desirable fix would be to allow the HTML Tag to coexist w/ the other PHP tags. The following HTML tags are so standard that not having them would be a real let down.

//
// Disaplayed Image File followed by a URL Link to the Image w/ a Caption.
// Note: The [target="_blank"] parameter allows for a new empty window to be opened rather than
// using the existing window. This feature is very nice since it doesn't disrupt your main session window.
//
<img src="__image_link_.jpg_bmp_etc">
<a href="__image_link_.jpg_bmp_etc" target="_blank">__picture_caption__</a>

For example, althought the __youtube_video_id__ is simple enough to use, the already existing tags in the existing threads are still there. So unless you would allow me to edit these pages manually, they will still be displayed w/o the video inserts. This same thing applies to the Google Video Tags.

In addition, if you do also provide an alternate PHP Google Video tag, such as, __embdgooglevideo_id__ it would be much more desirable in this case to also allow the specification of both of the "width & height" parameters. Such as, __embdgooglevideo_id__

//
// The "Google Video Tag" has become such a common standard that not having would be a real "disappointment".
// Google Video Tag - It would be nice to be able to set both the "height & width" parameters here...
// Everything else here is standard except the __video_id__
//
<embed style="width:608px; height:342px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=__video_id__&hl=en"> </embed>

Allowing this HTML "Google Video Tag" would allow my threads to be displayed. Otherwise, they have to be re-edited.

And again, the HTML "YouTube Video Tag" is also needed vs the PHP tag __youtube_video_id__. Otherwise the existing threads would have to be re-edited by someone willing to do this right, like I would be willing to do this right. It took a lot of time & effort to get these threads made, so I am not looking forward to see them go to waste.

//
// Embedded YouTube Video Tag
//
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/__video__code"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/__video__code" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

//
// Listing Tags
//
<ul>
<li>__item__00__</li>
<li>__item__01__</li>
<li>__item__nn__</li>
</ul>

//
// BlockQuote Tag
//
<blockquote>__text___</blockquote>

//
// Paragraph Tag
//
<p>__paragraph_text__</p>

//
// Header Tags - n=(1,2,3,...)
//
<hn>__header_text__</hn>

//
// Happy Face Wearing Sun Glasses (Notice the leading blank space)
//
8-)

//
// Surprised Face (Notice the leading blank space)
//
:-o

//
// Question
//
In my "Posting Rules" it shows "HTML code is Off". How can I turn this "ON"? Is this what is preventing my "bastard URL links" from being displayed as URL links ?


Thanks Again !!!

mizfish
01-23-2008, 03:32 PM
hi Jimbo,

we're getting there :) slow but sure. the majority of it is fixed now, though im still working on the size code. i'll keep working on that though.

the only thing i noticed is that the sample post you gave me is chocablock with youtube video's which is causing the page load time to slow down. if possible it might be worth not posting so many all at once, to help those on a slower connection. perhaps in future, some could be posted as the URL to the page instead of them all opening together.

the untagged URL thing, i wasnt sure about what you meant. if you could maybe clarify that for me, so i can try and fix it too.

regarding the missing smileys, can you post the info to each inside a quote box, so i can see more clearly what i need to fix. also if i've missed anything, let me know :)

susie

Jimbo
01-23-2008, 05:10 PM
No problem I can reduce on the amount of "embedded videos per page", it is just that they became so popular & that we were just assuming cable connections across the board. Is there a way to put code on the page & be able to tell whether the user has high-speed or not? That would take care of that & thus allow high-speeders get their pedal to the metal...

The untagged URLs are any URL that is not tagged (PHP nor HTML) just as
http://clubconspiracy.com (http://clubconspiracy.com)

which I don’t understand why is it that in my "Ron Paul Thread" none of the them show up as actual URL, but just "text"... you could "check it out" by going into the following link...

The Official Ron Paul President 2008 Campaign Trail- Thread
http://clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46955#post46955

... it could be because of some other "tag", such as the "SIZE" tag, which is still not fixed, is preventing them from getting activated... I think that could be it !!!

Boy, I was really surprised to see the "Google Video Tag" working... however, I don’t know if you did your "quick & dirty" PHP code fix or are you allowing also the "embed" HTML tags. Which after seeing the "Ron Paul" thread it seems as though you actually fixed them by allowing the HTML tags (either that or you editted them by hand).

Which brings me to that point...

Do you (currently) allow for both PHP code tags & standard HTML tags to coexist? If so, how do you turn ON "HTML tags". In my allowable box of "can & can’t do" goodies it seems as though HTML is turned OFF. How can you turn them ON?

You can forget about the smiley faces. I just got carried away there. I just realized that you have your own set of "sad & smiley" faces here. Why bother w/ that. We have more important things to worry about. But thanks for asking... anyway.

Jimbo
01-23-2008, 05:44 PM
Susie,

Again, thanks for your efforts.

I have another request (& my last request I promise).

If you look at my profile, I downloaded a GIF picture of a “clock” which is supposed to have a “transparent” background. It used to work fine in the old CC, but here it turns WHITE. I typically turn off all of the “forced white backgrounds” on any page by going into my “Internet” ”Tools” ”Internet Options” “General Tab” ”Accessibility” & check _x_ “Ignore colors specified on webpages” This turns off any default web-page colors & allows my Internet Explorer to assume the background color that I have programmed into my “Desktop” “Properties” “Appearance”, which I typically set to a “Gray” background. Now this turns out to be the following color specification: Hue 160, Sat 0, Lum 181, Red 192, Green 192, Blue 192.

So, what shows as a “forced white background” should actually acquire my Windows User Specified Background Color, but it doesn’t.

So all I can conclude is that you are “forcing the white background” onto my “transparent” GIF image by either turning off its “transparency” property, or by just “assuming” that your “forced white background” is my chosen background, which is NOT.

This is going to be interesting, since I have contacted many organizations, including Yahoo, about their “forced white backgrounds”, like on their NEWs page, & they just don’t care. “Forced White Backgrounds For ALL” – whether you like it or not. Tell that to the guys at the “New York Stock Exchange” floor in “Wall Street” & watch them all give you their middle finger...

However, even on the Yahoo News page, I can turn off their "forced white background" & acquire my own background color by selecting the “Ignore colors specified on webpages” ”Accessibility” option. What I would prefer for Yahoo to do is to allow me to change the background color w/o having to go into my ”Accessibility” properties, which unfortunately renders some webpages useless, specially when the "coders" do not program for ”Accessibility”, which is a real "shame" on the industry.

However, Henry Makow cared, & so did www.antiwar.com (http://www.antiwar.com) (& many others). They both made sure that if the user turns off the web page colors by using their accessibility feature, that their chosen colors were not imposed onto their viewers or users.

The funny thing about this is that the computer & the software is perfectly capable of allowing any & all users select their own background colors. But it just comes down to the policy that has been set my some big shot media mogul that thinks (full heartedly) everyone should like “Forced White Backgrounds”. That will turn into more “forced” visits to their “eye doctors” & this will improve their return on investment on some medical stock they probably own, or something along those lines. It is though, completely ridiculous. Like I said, the computer can handle it. It’s been handling it since Bill Gates put out the first Windows 95 OS out there. But some people are just too opinionated & too greedy to let us choose what backgrounds we should have. Go figure...

Oh, & by the way, the reason I am asking is simply because I am one of those people that do always get a headache if I have no choice but to sit & stare at a white screen for any length of time. I hate white screens w/ a passion.

Thanks again.

mizfish
01-23-2008, 07:12 PM
hi Jimbo,

the issue with the clock, is an issue with the image itself, not the forum. you might ant to try deleting it and re-adding it into your profile.

regarding the rest of the issues, the size code isnt fixable unfortunately, so im going to have to remove them from the posts in the forum, which i can do by running a script. i've to wait on word back from the boss though before i can do that, just to be sure.

regarding the old links, it may just be the format its been coded into the old forum so im not sure it'll fix itself. but maybe once the size code is removed, it might help. i'll have to wait and see once i remove that old code, to see how it goes.

ive turned on HTML on the boards, which should alow the basic html commands in threads, but not php. however, if the forum gets flooded by html in threads, it'll have to be turned off as a precaution. so hopefully people wont overuse it, and take advantage by spamming etc.

hope this helps

susie

Jimbo
01-23-2008, 07:38 PM
The problem w/ getting rid of the SIZE tags is that then both the location & the size of the text will be lost.

So before running the script, I can experiment w/ the H (heading) tags, which I am assuming that if you turn on HTML, then they should work, & we can do a clean substitution between SIZE tags & Hn tags.

So if you could hold off on running your script, that will give me time to experiment & can feed back to you what a better replacement might be...

Thanks.

mizfish
01-23-2008, 08:17 PM
hi Jimbo,

the only way to fix those tags would be to do it manually in every post. im afraid i dont have the time for that, so the only alternative would be to remove the text for the size commands in this format - [size=7] etc.

i wont remove anything though until i get the go ahead from Sanjay, but im not sure exactly what you'll be trying to do to fix it. can you explain?

susie

Jimbo
01-23-2008, 09:27 PM
Susie,

Could you not run the script on my threads? I can fix my threads manually, but it is going to take me some time.

Apparently you can't have both vB-tags & HTML tags coexisting in the same document, so I used strictly HTML tags, & I fixed my font problem. Look at the following thread, at the last thread...

The Official Ron Paul President 2008 Campaign Trail- Thread
http://clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46955#post46955

I replaced the SIZE tags w/ the appropriate HTML font face="font_name" size=n tag & the URL w/ the equivalent HTML & it works just fine.

So, if you could either hold off on running your script to remove the SIZE tags, or if you could just not run your script on neither my threads nor any of my posts (for that matter), then that would be greatly appreciated...

Question: My Avatar is locked. It won't take a download. Is that temporary?

Thanks again.

mizfish
01-23-2008, 09:57 PM
hi Jimbo,

ive checked the settings for your avatar. can you check it now to see if you can upload one etc?

also, i had a brain-wave. instead of me removing the [size=7] format. what i can do is exchange parts of it, such as:

for the [size=7] - swap xx-large to "6" that should tie it in with the corect bbcode of:

[size=6]

unfortunately in cant run the script on certain peoples posts, its an all or nothing thing. so id not be able to leave yours out.

Jimbo
01-24-2008, 01:26 AM
Ok.

1) That would work if you changed


size=xx-large ---> 7
size=x-large ---> 6
size=large ---> 5
size=medium ---> 4
size=small ---> 3


2) The new problem that originated is the following.

Whenever you put in the fix for the "untagged URLs" such as for example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81-XQzO7yU

& after your conversion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81-XQzO7yU

NOTE: Your fix works fine for any other URLs. The problem only happens whenever the URL link contains a "youTube video URL link". The problems w/ this is that instead of converting that link to a standard URL you can click on, you are internally converting it to an "embedded YouTube tag" such as

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kyoZDBPvNV0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kyoZDBPvNV0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

But anyhow, If I didn't loose you, you are converting the "untagged YouTube Video URL" into an "embedded YouTube URL" instead or just keeping it as a standard URL link. And the end result of this problem is that instead of just 1 "embedded YouTube Video", I am getting 2 "embedded YouTube Videos" one right after the other. The reason being is that I typically place an embedded video stream followed by the video link itself, so that they can either view the stream right there, or view it via the link (& so that they can get a copy the link).

So I guess you have to leave a URL containing an "embedded YouTube Video" URL w/o further processing it as an "embedded tag" & leave it alone as a "standard URL".

So this code,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81-XQzO7yU


should internally generate this (& only this)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81-XQzO7yU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g81-XQzO7yU</a>

The reason you might have not noticed this issue before is that the problem does not show up until after I edit a page. Even if I don't change anything on the page, everything looks fine. Now, just after I hit "Save or Preview Changes" button, you process the "untagged URLs" & "bingo", that's where the problem gets introduced.

I hope I didn't confuse you (because by now I am seeing double).

Thanks.

mizfish
01-24-2008, 06:54 AM
ok, i think i understand now lol when you type a URL, you want it to just say the text instead of it being an active link?

i think this is pretty much standard over the majority of forums. if theres a www. or an http:// part, it'll autoformat it to an active link. im not sure its that big a problem, in all honesty. its just something we'll have to live with i think.

regarding the font sizes. ill create a duplicate forum and run a test on that, rather than do it on this one, just to be safe.

susie

Jimbo
01-24-2008, 10:22 AM
Susie,

No.

A URL should be an active link.

Active URLs are not “evil”, they are the real thing. We want all of our URLs to be real “hyperlinks” to webpages, file photos, video streams, & documents across the Internet. It would be safe to say that "a webpage w/ inactive URLs is not an interactive webpage", & therefore not a real webpage.

Now, a URL that takes you to the “YouTube site” should not turn itself into an “embedded YouTube Video”. These are 2 different animals.

1) An active URL that takes you to the “YouTube Site” & displays a boxed video stream there (at the YouTube site) – this one you are converting to An “embedded YouTube URL” (see item-2 below), & it should not.

2) An active “embedded YouTube URL” embeds (or inserts) the “YouTube” video stream exactly at the place in the webpage where that “embedded URL” was placed & so it should replace itself w/ a (boxed) "windowed video stream control" right there. – this one you are processing Ok (for both YouTube & Google Videos).

Susie, I think that if we get these last few things just right we are going to be as compatible as we can possibly expect w/ the previous CC content.

Thanks.

mizfish
01-24-2008, 06:37 PM
hi Jimbo :)

thats the size codes all fixed.

regarding the youtube thing, i disabled the media plugin that was converting the URL to show the clip. can you keep an eye on the youtube clips etc and let me know if any dont show? if they dont, it might be i have to turn the plugin back on.


test 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubRuI7TvkNI


(im a bit slow withn this lol)

mizfish
01-24-2008, 06:44 PM
i just noticed this code doesnt work:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ubRuI7TvkNI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ubRuI7TvkNI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

but it still works inside the youtube bbcode:

ubRuI7TvkNI

ubRuI7TvkNI

mizfish
01-24-2008, 06:51 PM
sorry, i just had to say that clip is too damn funny lol :eek:

Jimbo
01-24-2008, 07:44 PM
Susie,

I am going to create a test post & make sure that the fixes also work after you post.

I can see that you ran your font size script. Things are looking good – really.

The only thing missing is that in my old threads none of the “untagged URLs” are becoming active. You might need to run a script to go through & tag them. But let me check first to be 100% certain that’s what we need to do.

But everything else seems to have been fixed.

Like I said, let me run some final tests & I’ll let you know what’s missing.

Thank you.

Jimbo
01-24-2008, 08:09 PM
:confused:

Ok.

Beautiful. It's all working just fine.

Now, this is what's missing. In my old threads none of the "untagged URLs" are coming out because you need to run a script & tag them just as you are doing now after anyone posts an "untagged URL". Your code places the "[ URL ]" tags around,


[ url ]__untagged__URL__Link___[ /url ]


If you could do that, then... I owe you.

Thank you.

:cool:

mizfish
01-24-2008, 09:08 PM
hi Jimbo,

i dont think thats possible, each URL is different, so i dont think theres any quick fix for it. as long as people can copy and paste, they should be ok, and from nwo on they'll be fixed. so for now i think its best to just leave it as is. the majority of the issues are fixed, the url one is just a minor one i think we can live with :)

susie

Jimbo
01-24-2008, 10:06 PM
Susie,

You can’t run a script that checks for the user & only operates on their files? Like mine?

I know it might seem like a lot to ask if you were doing this for every single user, but it does not seem like there anyone in line here. And besides, we just got here. This is like the welcoming prep...

Well, if you can’t you can’t.

I appreciate what you did.

The world is beginning to look pale again... :(

Thanks.

mizfish
01-24-2008, 10:55 PM
its not so much that Jimbo, im sure every post could be fixed to make the links active, but its the time and cost involved.

theres nothing really wrong with the links to justify spending the money it would cost to fix them in all 40,000 posts :(. though if if it was a simple fix, i'd do it in a heartbeat honest.

the thing is, each link is unique, theres no command to specify looking for the varying text. it'd pick up every bit of text on the forum. we cant single out the start of the URL and the end of it, in order to insert the tags.

from now on though, we can concentrate on future posts, and make sure theyre all ok. archived posts tend to not be referenced as much, so im sure the link thing will be fine.

take care

susie

Jimbo
01-25-2008, 10:09 AM
Susie,

I am not going to bother you w/ this again but here is the thing. Hear me out...

You seemed to have been able to fix the SIZE issue for multiple SIZEs w/o a problem. I don’t know how many threads you had to run that on, whether it was in the order 40 thousand threads or more, it didn’t seem to be neither a costly issue nor a super time consuming ordeal. You probably had fun doing it while providing the new "vBulletin" users w/ the satisfaction of once again having their threads come back to life again under their new forum. Ok. So far so good...

Now, to fix the URL issue:

1) All you have to do is run the “exact same algorithm” you are now running on “untagged URLs” when anyone enters a post. The “exact same algorithm”. You can just "cut & paste" it onto the same script you used to fix the SIZE issue – which I am sure is still laying around somewhere in you hard-drive. Run it on the same amount of threads you ran it against to fix the font SIZE issue, & it is not going to take a “second” longer than it took to fix that. As a matter of fact, it is going to take much less time, since “we already know what the solution is”. Now it might take a bit longer to run (& because of the size of the URLs - but a few nanoseconds more for each URL, no one is going to notice except the computer), but while you go & grab yourself a cup of "Java" on US,... the job will be completed before you even put your first bag of beautiful RAW Hawaiian sugar into your cup.

2) Now you could comeback & tell me again about not knowing how long the URLs are, but think about it, all you need to do is run the “exact same algorithm” you are now running on “untagged URLs” when anyone "Submits" a post. That is certainly not going to cause any side effects you are not already aware of.

My 2 cents.

You have already earned our admiration. So, you don't need to blow us right out of our seats w/ both of your wizardry & ingenuity... So, if you do it, don't do it because you felt guilty, ...but just because you “care”.

Thanks again.

[/OUT]
:cool:

mizfish
01-25-2008, 10:48 AM
hi Jimbo :)

the correction for the size issue was very simple. because it was a straight swap of fixed text, ie

size=x-large to size=6

there are no variables in those strings of text.

the issue with the url's. is that the following:

1 - each URL is different, so in order to fix them, i'd need to run the command for each URL.

2 - some of the URL's have http:// some have www. some dont have the www. part yet have the http:// par etc. too many variations.

3 - how to detetmin between the already tagged URL's and the untagged URL's.

4 - how to exclude all other URL's such as image url's, video clip url's etc.

its an impossible task, there are just too many variations.

susie

sanjay
01-25-2008, 01:54 PM
I like when people use flattery.

sanjay
01-25-2008, 01:58 PM
can't you just find and replace the HTML tags that identified links and replace that?

hi Jimbo :)

the correction for the size issue was very simple. because it was a straight swap of fixed text, ie

size=x-large to size=6

there are no variables in those strings of text.

the issue with the url's. is that the following:

1 - each URL is different, so in order to fix them, i'd need to run the command for each URL.

2 - some of the URL's have http:// some have www. some dont have the www. part yet have the http:// par etc. too many variations.

3 - how to detetmin between the already tagged URL's and the untagged URL's.

4 - how to exclude all other URL's such as image url's, video clip url's etc.

its an impossible task, there are just too many variations.

susie

mizfish
01-25-2008, 02:57 PM
hi Sanjay,

the problem is there isnt any HTML tags to identify them. theyre flat text. so theres nothing to know where they are. we can find http, or www. but theres nothing to say where the end of the url ends.

eg

www.this-is-a-sample-url.com/page-name-etc (http://www.this-is-a-sample-url.com/page-name-etc)

in the above text, we can identify the start of the URL, but the query wont be able to identify where it ends, unless we can give it a specific set of characters to look for.

i can tell it to look for "xyz" and swap it with "123", but because all the URL's are different, we cant specify all the variables that it "could be".

mizfish
01-25-2008, 03:00 PM
i should add, theres nothing actually wrong with the URL's that were converted, the only issue is they arnt active links. people can just copy them and past them in their browsers.

Jimbo
01-25-2008, 04:05 PM
Now I feel bad I opened that "can of worms"... :confused:

//
// Ignore These - So you don't need to process any of these in any way. Just leave them as is.
//
// Yes - Ignoring these embedded URL might not be so simple...

< img src="http://photo_link" height=xxx width=xxx border=2 >

< a href="http://photo_link" target="_blank">Photo Title or Name< /a >

< a href="_link_" target="_blank">_link_< /a >

< object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/__video__code"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param>< embed > < /embed ></object>

< embed> ___whatever__ </embed>

[ url ]__Link__[ /url ]

[ img ]__Link__[ /img ]

... etc., etc.,...

//
// Only Process These (Independent String Tokens) - & Ignore Everything Else
//

"http://__any__length__string__token___" ==> [ url ]http://__any__length__string__token___[ /url ]

"https://__any__length__string__token___" ==> [ url ]http://__any__length__string__token___[ /url ]

"www.__any__length__string__token___" ==> [ url ]www.__any__length__string__token___[ /url ]

//
// Summary - Simplified "C" Code Algorithm (Other Details & Complexities Omitted)
//
// NOTEs:
// 1) Tokens here are delimited by "white blank spaces" (space, newline, tabs, etc.)
// \n - newline
// \t - horizontal tab
// \v - vertical tab
// \b - backspace
// \r - carriage return
// \f - formfeed
//
// 2) URLs will become a string token as delimited by "white blank spaces".
//
// The entire single entity "token" will be the URL.
//
// This assumes that a URL will start w/ either ( http://, https://, www., or other known header), &
// it will end w/ a "white blank space".


char string_token[1025], p[2025];
string_token[0] = '\0';
p[0] = '\0';

while(get_next_string_token(string_token)) { // get next token - pseudo code
strncpy(p,string_token,1024); // make a copy

if(strncmp(string_token,"http://",7) == 0) { // if "http" URL
tag_untagged_URL(p); // tag that animal
output(p); // output fixed URL
} else if(strncmp(string_token,"https://",8) == 0) { // else if "https" URL
tag_untagged_URL(p); // tag that animal
output(p); // output fixed URL
} else if(strncmp(string_token,"www.",4) == 0) { // else if "www." URL
tag_untagged_URL(p); // tag that animal
output(p); // output fixed URL
} else {
output(string_token); // output unprocessed string token - pseudo code
}
}


Reference: strncmp
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstring/strncmp.html

Reference: strtok
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstring/strtok.html
:cool:

mizfish
01-25-2008, 05:05 PM
these are all fine and well. and im no coder as such, but the database is SQL, so im not entirely sure where the cplus commands will fit in.

in all honesty, is this really worth the time thats being spent on this? correct me if im wrong here, but isnt the whole point of this to change an inactive link into an active link?

Jimbo
01-25-2008, 05:21 PM
Susie, :confused:

As far as I am concerned you have already helped us plenty. And I sincerely thank you for that. I am also certain that everyone else in the CC forum is just as thankful as well.

A car is only good if it can take you somewhere.

A URL is only good if it can take you somewhere.

Democracy is only good if it can actually portray the “will” of “the people” it represents.

However, if “Sanjay” would like to take this further, & convert all “inactive URLs” into “active URLs” I am willing to help w/ my ideas. I am not knowledgeable in “databases” either & their interfaces, so I can’t help you there, but I can still think “out loud”, & so can you.

Thanks for all.
:cool:

Shadow
01-25-2008, 08:48 PM
I'm not sure if VBulletin supports "Jimbo Format" as we used to know it :(

I think you will have to change the "tone" of your message here.

Embeded Youtube videos should work on the other hand:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pZ_Z_XG0L2c&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pZ_Z_XG0L2c&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

sanjay
01-25-2008, 08:51 PM
Let's all move on from this issue for now. Susie has to work on making this place prettier and I have to bring in more people.

Shadow
01-25-2008, 08:53 PM
V Bulletin is a good forum engine.

mizfish
01-28-2008, 05:48 PM
i took this sissue to the vbulletin guys, who wrote this forum software, and know it better than anyone, and this was their response:

To be able to tell which is a link to an object or href can be a pain too.

You could match :

http://www.youtube.com/ (http://www.youtube.com/)*

So all youtube into links for instance, that looks like it would help a lot ?

Though if most of the them are mixed up, it will be a real pain.


therefore the issue of making links "active" is not going to be possible, as stated previously.

the matter is now closed, so i'll lock this thread.

regards

susie