HTML (I think I put it in the right forum this time.)

[El Blobbo revived]

Can we have HTML enabled?

[HyToFry]

If I can find a way to stop script, iframe, div, etc tags, then yes you can.

(don't hold your breath, it won't be for a while.)

------------------
I took a walk with my pain down memory lane; I still haven't found my way back.

--Oasis lyric... hyMogrifide.

[El Blobbo revived]

OOOkkkaaayyy......... I still don't exactly have an amazing amount of knowledge, it's just that we can get the equivalent and better w/HTML. [edit]HTML-o-Meter: <!-If you can see this, we don't have HTML.->

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 08-27-2001).]

[HyToFry]

<!-- and if you can see this than we really don't have html -->

[Chuck]

If you could enable HTML with some tags removed, you'd end up removing almost all of them as they become abused. Might as well leave things as they are.

[HappyMutant]

Ditto Chuck. While it's a pain, there are some evil things that one could do with any HTML at all...

[HyToFry]

In all fairness...

It would be quite simple to ruin threads right now.

Hell, I could destroy this thread without hacking the html.

Of course... I am a Quasi-God. All I'm saying is that just because they CAN doesn't mean that they will.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Let's not make it easier to ruin threads. Vote: no .

[HyToFry]

WOW!

Finally a topic for discussion.

It's allready easy to ruin a thread. I'll be the first to admit however that a font tag would be really nice. Right now the script changes < to &gt; in html, that shows up as <. This way if anyone puts a <font> tag in, it wont get through. The only part of the code I will write is to change &gt;font back to <font.

This way, only the font tag can get through, and a font tag can't be harmful--to the best of my knowledge. I'll have to check in further to see if it allows onload or another procedure of that sort.

I think if we do it right, we can in fact have html font tags. It would be a lot easier than trying to implement a ubb equivilant.

Discuss away. [=

[El Blobbo revived]

Well, another site I'm visiting did the UBB equivalent.

[HyToFry]

And it sucks (IMO)

------------------
I took a walk with my pain down memory lane; I still haven't found my way back.

--Oasis lyric... hyMogrifide.

[HyToFry]

Okay.

I move that we allow font tags for users that have been registered at the GL for over a year, and have more than 500 posts. Or something of that nature. Maybe a flag in the user's profile that is set by the admins?

Tell me what you think.

[Chuck]

[Dragon Phoenix]

I still vote no to anything that makes sabotaging threads easier. Even if it is already relatively easy, why make it easier? What is the big advantage of having this anyway?

* foresees Mathgrant doing all kinds of HTML related Nintendo things *

[HyToFry]

It would be nice in certain circumstances. (imho)

And if we limited it to users that had the rights to do so, if someone messed something up, the mods/admins could take away thier rights.

Really... it's very simple to crash a thread.

[Chuck]

Ok, then, everyone with more posts than Mathgrant will be allowed to use HTML?

[mithrandir]

hy, why don't you work on fixing the crash-bug then?

i really don't like the idea of fonts in the forum, just 'cause it's easier on my eyes for it all to look the same.

[Chuck]

Get a black and white monitor, then.

[HyToFry]

I'm working on a way to have preferences.

If for example, mith want's all the same, he can have it that way. I want to see them different (so I can put a personality to the font like I do in GLC, I can have it that way.

Don't worry about how.

------------------
I took a walk with my pain down memory lane; I still haven't found my way back.

--Oasis lyric... hyMogrifide.

[Ghost Post]

just let mit...... just let hy say who can use html or not, if someone thinks they have been excluded unfairly, they can put theor plee before the council, the evil council, headed by..........me, yes
muwahahahaha, sorry

[El Blobbo revived]

I think the administrators should be able to regulate whether a user can use HTML, however, if that is combined with: 500 posts+registered more than a year, then I'd get the right, cause I had around 200 before I corrupted. <font color="white> now let's see if Hy agrees. *Clicks reply.*

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-05-2001).]</font>

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by El Blobbo revived (edited 09-05-2001).]

[El Blobbo revived]

Hey, let me have the rights! I get them due to the fact that I registered more than a year ago, and made about 200 posts! Gimme!

[mithrandir]

vote: no, still. we don't need html, it'll just make a big mess of things.

[HyToFry]

Right now noone, not even I, can have rights to post HTML. The thread I posted in html was posted in the mod forum with html enabled. I then moved it here, and turned off html.

I will not allow comments, I will not allow scripts, I will not allow background colors, I will not allow <style> tags. In fact, the only thing that will be allowed it the <font> tag.

Still Vote: YES There are times when being able to post in html would be very convieniant. Especially in VSP. UBB as it is now, is VERY simple to crash. I say we fix the bugs first, and add html later.

BTW, El Blobbo... if you really think I'll allow the alert("hi") to get through.... you've got another think comming.

------------------
I took a walk with my pain down memory lane; I still haven't found my way back.

--Oasis lyric... hyMogrifide.

[Chuck]

Let's see, what interesting things can the FONT tag do?

[CrystyB]

Lessee... 540 posts. Hey, i got the right! Then i Vote: YES!
Honestly, this would be a nice feature, wouldn't cause a significant increase in size unless used 20 times per post, and this WILL be strongly discouraged, and won't have any security breaches. What were your objections again, mith?

[Luna]

I think 'we don't need it' is a fairly good objection. I don't really see what'd be so great about it. And I have a feeling that letting only certain users have html 'rights' could cause problems. just a thought.

Still voting no. Not that I'm a mod or admin, so who cares what I think?

[HyToFry]

[El Blobbo revived]

Tolate!

[Ghost Post]

Wow, do you Yanks still call us limeys. How quaint.

Gareth Southgate Badger swears by them you know, full of vitamin C.

[Antrax]

Hmm, Hy, the reply button gave me the old reply form in thise forum.

And to the topic at hand, vote: A resounding no. I'm pretty sure you know why. If you want to make improvements, fix what's wrong before implementing something new, ESPECIALLY something dangerous like HTML. Last thing I wanna see is all the moron IE users getting h4x0red this way or the other.
Antrax

------------------
And now, for something completely different:
LunaSilvertongue: Antrax, I hate you.
"Antrax, stop being an idiot." - Drake
justinl87: you're so mean
"BTW, Antrax is an idiot and should be lynched anyways, evil or not" - JDTAY

[Antrax]

This is a test, I think something's definitely wrong. Nutscrape related?
Antrax

------------------
And now, for something completely different:
LunaSilvertongue: Antrax, I hate you.
"Antrax, stop being an idiot." - Drake
justinl87: you're so mean
"BTW, Antrax is an idiot and should be lynched anyways, evil or not" - JDTAY