new thread
Just thought id post a pic=)
Been growing for 18 mounths now (ish)
[IMG]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/tharro/100_0131.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry thing didnt work, this should [img]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/tharro/100_0131.jpg[/img]
O_o thats odd ill try all three at once and see what one works (there isnt an edit button so i cant change the last ones)
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/tharro/100_0131.jpg
[IMG]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/tharro/100_0131.jpg[/IMG]
If none of these work then i have no idea *shrugs*
Wow! Looks really great for those amount of months. Best of luck to you with continued success as you proceed with your journey to being a Longhair full time.
Perhaps an updated FAQ might include the tip that vB code doesn't work here and to either use the photo feature at the bottom or employ straight html. It seems the popularity of vB based message boards has caused many users to emply the code here for the purpose of linking images.
Just a friendly suggestion from someone lurking in the shadows.
Although considered, after review it does not appear to be practical to implement square-bracket code here for several reasons. Before listing them, I'll comment that the FAQ is already quite clear about how to include photos, including giving the proper HTML code for doing that.
Reasons:
1. I maintain four bulletin boards. This is the only one with the square-bracket code ever appearing. Users run in different circles, and it seems some of the users here have encountered that code. It is not possible to keep up on where hundreds of users hang out when they are not here.
2. If we implemented square-bracket photo inclusion, this would mislead some users into thinking they could use other features of the square-bracket code. Then they would be frustrated why their photos worked but other stuff didn't.
3. We can't implement all features of square-bracket code because it surely will be under revision. Since we don't run software that uses it, our version would soon be out of date. Also, with it being a renegade code, who's to say there won't be several different versions of it that users bring to here? HTML, which undergoes heavy standardization efforts, can't even fully shake off that problem.
4. We have been put through the fire with all hacks of HTML, and we've plugged all of the holes that miscreants use to hijack users, infect them with viruses, etc. We are not running a board with square-bracket software, so we don't see exploits in that code, and we can't protect the users from such. We are not part of the square-bracket developer community, so we don't know of the latest exploits.
5. Users here use square brackets in writing, in some cases in places where they'd otherwise have used angle brackets. They've learned that they cannot use angle brackets - are we to tell them now that they can't use square brackets either? [grin] What will be the next HTML knock-off code to come along, and what standard ASCII characters will it wish to co-opt?
6. Yes, we could live with all of the above hassles, but the inconvenience would far surpass that encountered by the few users who fail to read the FAQ, and whose posts are completely legible to others anyway, because about half the users just paste in URLs for their photos in plain text anyway, using no encoding scheme at all, and the users are accustomed to that.
Bill
... not the Teledelusion Network and Telephony NuMonopoly But SquareBracketCode and AngledBracketCode
-particularly to the apparent take on my post as being a suggestion to allow SBC to be workable here- it wasn't.
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Hi Lurk Ness Monster,
your grins in angle brackets don't show! Here they are:
Indeedely.
It seems that all I accomplished was a font reduction- my apologies to any macular degenerates out there. [smirk]
I've done some investigating, Lurk. One problem is finding information on those codes because people can't agree on what to call them. If you google "vB code tutorial" all you get is tutorials for Virtual Basic, another language altogether.
From those pages one can see it's just as tough to learn as HTML and is not that different - just different enough that about half the codes won't work in HTML if you just change the brackets. The first page I linked refers to the [img] tag, the one that started this discussion, as "not universally used". So the code is as inconsistent in its implementation as it is in its name.
Our thoughts have been, "Why make people learn a code just as tough as HTML, when their learning of HTML will be useful elsewhere?" Also, HTML does have standards. Like what we all call it. [grin]
Sometime this weekend I am going to modify the code of this board just to take the [img] square-bracket code, to see how that goes. People seldom try the others, but you're right, a lot do try the [img] tag. If the mod causes more problems than it solves, I can always yank it back out.
Bill
