1 Reply by MattF

(15 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

Reines wrote:

Also is claiming it will support HTML5 and CSS3, but I'll believe it when I see it. Still does terrible on ACID3 which isn't much of a surprise.

Apparently they weren't planning on supporting XHTML fully initially, from what I heard. Sounds like they've changed that stance now though. Can't see them ever getting it anything like, personally. I'm guessing it'll end up the same as always. Looks alright from the users point of view but cocks everything up with a vengeance from the coding side of things.

Just sidetracking on the HTML5 point for a moment, am I the only one who seems to think that it appears like a half-hearted hack to try and make it something like 'cos they realised they'd dropped the ball?

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

2 Reply by MattF

(15 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

Reines wrote:

Don't worry IE9 is in the works now!

Funnily enough, that doesn't exude a warm, cushy feeling. big_smile You can paint crap white but it will still be crap, and I doubt IE will ever be anything other than. Anyhows, last I heard, they didn't even have a year for arrival approximated, ne'er mind a rough timespan.

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

3 Reply by MattF

(15 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

viktor wrote:

why do you expect good results from a broken browser?

I doubt anyone expects good results from that piece of crap, but until users let it die the horrible and agonising death it deserves, some modicum of work to make things look passable for IE is inevitable, (although even I'll admit to thinking "sod it" where IE is concerned, of late).

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

4 Reply by MattF

(2 replies, posted in General support (1.2))

Valen wrote:

Thank you all for prompt reply to a really difficult question.

Your question is awfully vague on specifics. What, for example, does "not work" mean? That can mean absolutely anything. A meaningful description of the problem or a link to your site would help. I'd personally guess you've cocked the path to the forum index file up.

Go to forum: General support (1.2)

5 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

Steven is referring to the fact that the browser has to literally redraw the layout of the page if the image sizes are unspecified. Specify dimensions and the browser can assign the exact space needed on the first pass.

This is just the first link I found on Google which gives some explanation:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/size/

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

6 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

Cheers. I'd just assumed the MySQLi extension was for that flatfile? variant. I hadn't realised it was the main one now.

Go to forum: General discussion

7 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General support (1.2))

In essence though, moderator access is practically defined per user, even when they're in a moderator group. All moderator access, (barring a few defaults), is specific to each user, and can be changed accordingly thorough their profile. It just seems a bit counter-intuitive. For example, why have one, (or multiple), moderator groups, (the settings of which, in all honesty, control very little of their actual moderator access/permissions), when you can just have none whatsoever and then control the users moderator access precisely through their profile, where their general moderator access is already controlled from, (barring the few general moderator defaults). The reasoning seems sound, which is why I'm almost sure I've overlooked some glaring reason. big_smile


Edit: Feel free to split this discussion and my posts to a new thread, if you think it best, rather than deviating this thread. smile

Go to forum: General support (1.2)

8 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

I'll admit to not having checked through it thoroughly. big_smile I just try to post any links which may possibly be of use before I forget about them, these days. big_smile

Edit: Just on the prepared queries note, does anyone know why the pg_ functions in PHP have a far better selection of commands than the other database types? Is it due to limitations of the other DB interfaces or merely that no-one has created the corresponding functions for those PHP DB interfaces yet? Just a curiosity question. For example, pg_prepare, pg_query_params etc. Just wondered if that was liable to change in future, or as to whether using the PDO layer or suchlike was the only way to have consistency of available functions.

http://uk2.php.net/manual/en/ref.pgsql.php
http://uk2.php.net/manual/en/ref.mysql.php

Go to forum: General discussion

9 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General support (1.2))

Reines wrote:

Also 1.4 has support for multiple moderator groups.

Just going off on a tangent regarding moderators, big_smile why were moderator groups used instead of merely per user moderator settings, originally? Moderator access has always been defined through the users profile, so why was moderator access group specific rather than user specific, i.e: no moderator groups but rather have an option, (per user and changeable in their profile, regardless of their user group), as to whether they are a moderator or not? I've been wondering on this point for a while. I'm sure I've overlooked some glaringly obvious reason. big_smile

Go to forum: General support (1.2)

10 Reply by MattF

(36 replies, posted in Bug reports (1.4))

Are you switching between the www. variant and base domain at all, i.e: www.example.org versus just example.org?

Go to forum: Bug reports (1.4)

11 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

StevenBullen wrote:

It was down for a few hours for me tongue nevermind

On and off, me too. big_smile Ne'er seen one server/site which doesn't have the odd periods of connectivity problems, as of yet though.

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

12 Reply by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

Nothing is instantaneous every moment of every day. The old advice always holds true. Try again in a few minutes.

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

13 Topic by MattF

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

Just came across this whilst I was looking for something totally unrelated, big_smile but thought I'd pop the link up incase it was of use to anyone.

http://www.greensql.net/

Go to forum: General discussion

14 Reply by MattF

(25 replies, posted in General support (1.4))

lie2815 wrote:

That's not what I meant. I was talking about my comment.

It's easier to just leave it, before she removes your will to live. big_smile

Go to forum: General support (1.4)

15 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

quaker wrote:

This is like going to a FORD dealer and saying Toyota better...

That's different. That would just be a simple statement of fact.

Go to forum: General discussion

16 Reply by MattF

(20 replies, posted in Feature requests)

qie wrote:

2. one people trust another one,it does not just need online communicate,there lots of spys on there, from goverment,from website competitor,from everywhere,cyberspace is a dangerous place as you re running a commercial site.

qie wrote:

hmm, I don't agree with you. sad i think post is not more important than privacy. there lots of post,yeah.moderator comes up,check it,delete it,closed it,ban someone, is normal, just like nothing happened,but if he silently got your privacy information like your IP and mailbox,he will know you and your location easily (if he got other power of this society)

If you're that paranoid, or living in a society which is so nefarious, I'd personally say you ought to be considering designing your own system to your own exact specification. It would be bugger all use if you're living in such a society, as there will be far more means than a U.I for the 'state officials' to access any and all information unless your server is hosted by yourself, on your own hardware locally etc. Even then you would not be completely secure. There is one way to keep any and all information secure. Never connect any of your systems to a public network and never allow any users to connect to a system.

Btw, if you make someone whom you don't trust a moderator, then you have no-one to blame but yourself if something goes wrong.

If the display of private information is ignoring some existing security setting then it's a bug. If it's just not living upto someones specific level of paranoia in general, that isn't a bug.

Go to forum: Feature requests

17 Reply by MattF

(14 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Slight update on those instructions. You'd want to place the code just after the member check. No use doing the lookup if they're already logged in and a member. big_smile Pop the code just after this block, near the top of the file.

// If we are logged in, we shouldn't be here
if (!$pun_user['is_guest'])
{
    header('Location: index.php');
    exit;
}

Go to forum: Feature requests

18 Reply by MattF

(14 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Darren wrote:

Another way to deal with this would be to require a certain number of posts before members can add a url to their profile. The way I see it, if your not an active member you don't deserve the privelage. It wouldn't stop spam registrations but should slow them to a crawl.

Or they would just use a bot for working across the flood period and you'd get a deluge of posts from a single spammer rather than just the odd one or two. They could do a hell of a lot in the hour or two that no mod/admin may be online.


eliot, That looks like a good idea, could you provide some instructions to add that to a 1.4 board please?

Just stick that code he posted at the top of register.php, just after the opening php tag.

Go to forum: Feature requests

19 Reply by MattF

(14 replies, posted in Feature requests)

I.P based blocking methods will suffer false positives. On a support forum, you hardly want to be running the risk of blocking legitimate users in need of support.

Go to forum: Feature requests

20 Reply by MattF

(14 replies, posted in Feature requests)

What might your suggestion be for preventing spam registrations?

Go to forum: Feature requests

21 Reply by MattF

(19 replies, posted in General discussion)

I was just curious. smile

Go to forum: General discussion

22 Reply by MattF

(19 replies, posted in General discussion)

Cyclone103 wrote:

Also, you could have simply tested instead of actually trying to break the forum. I've banned your IP temporarily, until these issues have been worked out. By no means do I expect you to be stopped by this, but I'd imagine your intents are not malicious.

Just out of curiosity, how is someone supposed to test something which may be broken without trying to break it? Through psychic ability?

Go to forum: General discussion

23 Reply by MattF

(22 replies, posted in Programming)

Reines wrote:

I didn't have a proper look, but FYI you can't return false from a constructor.

Sorted. smile Force of habit moment there. big_smile

Go to forum: Programming

24 Reply by MattF

(22 replies, posted in Programming)

Just on a slight aside, this is the template class where I was sanitising the output in one single location. Just incase anyone may have a use for it or just feel like having a play. big_smile (It probably still has some bugs in it yet, as it is still a bairn).

http://outgoing.bauchan.org/unix/template.txt

The $extpls var is just an array containing file names whose content doesn't get sanitised with htmlspecialchars.

Go to forum: Programming

25 Reply by MattF

(22 replies, posted in Programming)

Must admit, input sanitisation does seem totally unnatural, but each time I run through the list of pro's and con's, it always seems to win hands down on the general ease of implementation. Less processing and verification can be done at the opportune moment, so to speak. It really does seem weird though.

Go to forum: Programming