Square brackets—a request

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

hey mods/coders....

could i request that in the next iteration of ilx you're working on now we have the option of using html-style diagonal brackets instead of square ones? would that work or would that open the door to exploits or unwanted stuff?

because i gotta say, the square brackets are the least-conveniently placed characters on the keyboard and it is annoying to have to use them when the diagonals are so much swifter and closer.

thoughts?

feelings?

questions?

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:29 (nineteen years ago)

Have a look here: http://www.ilxor.com:8090/ILX/. Libcrypt has written a thing that translates basic HTML into BBCode.

If you want thoughts, I would say that others have said that square brackets are easier, as you don't need to hold shift. I guess this is subjective.

Hope you like the new stuff.

― Keith, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:45 (nineteen years ago)

don't u know britishes don't have feelings

― ▒█▄█ ▄▄ ▒█▄█, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:45 (nineteen years ago)

I miss the right hand square bracket all the time, I can't believe anybody finds it easier cos they don't gotta press SHIFT. lol 1-fingered typists.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:00 (nineteen years ago)

This is something Keith and I had a discussion about on one of the ILX threads. I seem to remember being convinced by Keith's reasoning (it makes securing input easier), but I can't find the thread.

But doesn't the existence of this libcrypt's translator, which is presumably satisfactory from a security POV, prove that the security problem is tractable (and solved!)? Just accept a subset of HTML input as on old-ILX and pipe it through libcrpyt's tool. Strip out anything it doesn't understand.

I don't buy any argument that the current syntax is more usable than angle brackets. In fact, it's less so, since this is unique syntax seen nowhere else on the web. Either stick to HTML or choose one of the well-known HTML alternatives, e.g. Markdown or Textile.

A lot of people are going to end up writing (or pasting) in HTML every time, and clicking that button _every time_. I honestly don't see the point of keeping this unnecessarily unique, novel square bracket invetion around.

― caek, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:07 (nineteen years ago)

the shift thing is true but the diagonals are placed so conveniently that it kind of outweighs it in my opinion.

not sure what you mean by the libcrypt thing?

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:09 (nineteen years ago)

If you want thoughts, I would say that others have said that square brackets are easier, as you don't need to hold shift. I guess this is subjective.

TS: The subjective advantage of not holding shift vs. the cognitive load of writing for the web in one way on this site and another way _everywhere else_.

You can make a decent case for either, but it's a change from old-ILX without an overwhelming case in it's favour, which, in my book, is enough to get rid of it.

― caek, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

not sure what you mean by the libcrypt thing

He means that if you go to, e.g. http://www.ilxor.com:8090/ILX/AskNewQuestionControllerServlet?&boardid=2 you'll see a button to convert HTML input to the current square bracket code (which is not BBCode, despite how that button is labelled).

In my view, this button is redundant. Just accept HTML input. No one will miss square brackets, and several people (me, you, Tracer Hand), would like angle brackets back.

― caek, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

I'd just like to second s1ocki's motion.

― Leee, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

there must be a secure way to accept a limited number of html tags, like flickr, blog comments etc etc do?

― s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:32 (nineteen years ago)

Yes. It's what the new "Convert to BBCode" button does, so it's not only possible -- it's been implemented.

― caek, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:44 (nineteen years ago)

"Is it black?"
"It is black."
"Is it?"
"It is."
"Is it really?"

(I love you all.)

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 23:58 (nineteen years ago)

btw, Ned, you are very very creepy

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 29 March 2007 00:12 (nineteen years ago)

can we make it a "convert and post" button?

honestly an extra button seems like an unnecessarily clunky workaround. what the point??

― s1ocki, Thursday, 29 March 2007 00:38 (nineteen years ago)

square brackets are easier, as you don't need to hold shift.

YOU don't, we (Belgian azerty keyboard) need the ALT GR key.

― StanM, Thursday, 29 March 2007 06:34 (nineteen years ago)

man how i hate pressing shift.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 29 March 2007 06:58 (nineteen years ago)

I like doing this neat thing called copy + paste, myself.

― Frogman Henry, Thursday, 29 March 2007 08:30 (nineteen years ago)

there must be a secure way to accept a limited number of html tags, like flickr, blog comments etc etc do?

s1ocki on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:32 PM (Yesterday)

not in BBC BASIC

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

honestly an extra button seems like an unnecessarily clunky workaround. what the point??

The reason it's not automatic is because the translation isn't foolproof. There's an awful lot of HTML my button won't convert. If you are writing HTML instead of BBcode -- ILX2 now implements a restricted subset of the most commonly-accepted BBcode tags, by the way -- then you really want to look at what the converter has done to your HTML before you post it. If the posting were automatic, then folks might be surprised by how their tags have lost properties or something.

By the way, if you use Firefox and want to use a word-processor-like interface instead of BBcode tags, you should check out BBComposer. Personally, I find it cumbersome to bring it up on each form by right-clicking, but I can see how some would like it. Naturally, you can't use it to add stylings that are unsupported by ILX, such as font colors and sizes, which were purposely omitted 'cause they're obnoxious.

― libcrypt, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

which were purposely omitted 'cause they're <strike>obnoxious</strike> fun.

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

the shift key issue is a good point.

― blueski, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

doesn't support <s> or <strike> btw

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

if the problem is that people will be surprised to find that their html wasn't converted can't you just have that little warning that pops up to say "oh hey we hate your html" come up when you hit submit?

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

IIRC the reason Andrew blocked variable font sizes under the old code was because people would occasionally start threads with things like 'GODDAMN I HATE THOSE FUCKING JEWS' in enormous text which wasn't exactly worksafe.

I do miss being able to write PLUR in five different colours though.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

just use gifs instead

― blueski, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

if the problem is that people will be surprised to find that their html wasn't converted can't you just have that little warning that pops up to say "oh hey we hate your html" come up when you hit submit?

Perhaps, but folks should be able to see if the conversion was done to their satisfaction before posting it. Some folks might get upset to find that has been converted to , for instance. Since the conversion is done in Javascript, it's instantaneous, so it's really not so much hassle to hit two buttons if you want to use HTML.

doesn't support <s> or <strike> btw

Yeah. I need to fix that.

― libcrypt, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

a simple a href convert was just not working for me yesterday. but i can't quite figure out the problem. illegal characters?

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

Post the code somewhere and I'll look at it.

― libcrypt, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

Just so people don't think slocki and I are lone cranks:

ALSO, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SIMPLE HTML BACK? THOSE STUPID BRACKETS ARE WAY TOO HARD TO TYPE AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CLICK THE CONVERT TO BB CODE EVERY TIME!!!

PLEASE!!!

-- jaxon, Friday, 13 April 2007 23:41 (Yesterday)

― caek, Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:35 (nineteen years ago)

^ cosign x 10000000000000000000000000

― JW, Sunday, 15 April 2007 19:57 (nineteen years ago)

http://tech-meister.com/DieselBenz/TECH/rube-goldberg-example.jpg

seriously

― JW, Sunday, 15 April 2007 20:00 (nineteen years ago)

"in the old days you could type ö and get an 'o' with an umlaut on it....happy days.

-- Grandpont Genie, Monday, April 16, 2007 6:11 PM (3 minutes ago)
oh you can now

*blushes*

you couldn't a couple of weeks ago. i wish ILX will decide whether it likes HTML or not!

-- Grandpont Genie, Monday, April 16, 2007 6:12 PM (3 minutes ago)

even markh is SPITTING WITH RAGE abt this.

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 16 April 2007 15:17 (nineteen years ago)

øoö

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Monday, 16 April 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.