(25 replies, posted in Programming)

Sorry I haven't work on the Punbb integration much. It's a big undertaking smile and I want to iron out some of the basics first. I have new scripts up now with many fixes, and including an embryonic new feature -- http://www.labradorstraits.net/mwmdemo/blog.php -- where I'd appreciate input on from anyone/everyone here.

Rickard I hope you don't mind me posting this. If so I'll stop, just say smile

Other characters are permitted however, e.g., '?'.


(15 replies, posted in Programming)

If I understand correctly, you want a script to upload files to a website using a web browser.

What you have so far is a form that lets a user select a file on his/her computer. What you don't have is a script that handles the upload and writes the file to disk on the server.

There are many such scripts readily available; have a look here.

But I might be misunderstanding the question also smile


(25 replies, posted in Programming)

OK, is the joker one of you guys? smile


So subtle.


(25 replies, posted in Programming)

I'd be happy to share any progress I make, though it could be a while...


(25 replies, posted in Programming)

Rickard wrote:
sleddog wrote:

- Fetch the latest version from Rickard's site;

For that you can use this file big_smile

Hey cool. One problem solved. Inspires me to maybe make a totally unplanned first attempt at it this weekend smile


(25 replies, posted in Programming)

Paul wrote:

I like it too. Clean, simple and elegant. Any plans for PunBB integration?


I haven't progressed as far as a "plan", but the idea is there smile It's part of the reason why for now the user/authentication system is barebones -- to allow for integration with other systems.

What I'd like is to make punBB an add-on component, with an automated install. So a site administrator could click an "Add PunBB Forum" link and a script would:

- Fetch the latest version from Rickard's site;
- Untar it;
- Generate a config file;
- Add the tables to the database;
- Insert the forum administrator user;
- Create a default forum;
- Set the punbb cookie and load the forum index page.

I think all that is do-able, but I haven't begun to work on it yet -- and it could be a while smile

And then there are many things to do with layout & design... it would be nice if the forum 'inherited' some basic settings from the site.


(25 replies, posted in Programming)

Here's a little project I've been working on, a simple content management system called (for now at least) MyWebMaker: http://www.labradorstraits.net/mwm/

There's a demo you can play with. Any comment, suggestions are welcome (note that it's in a very early stage of development.)



(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Have a look at Trac (if you haven't already):


I haven't used it so can't really comment, aside from saying it looks interesting. From the website:

What is Trac?

    * An integrated system for managing software projects
    * An enhanced wiki
    * A flexible web-based issue tracker
    * An interface to the Subversion revision control system

It's free and open source.


(27 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Yes, that's an alternative. Though making changes to the stopword list would be greatly facilitated by having available a most-commonly-used wordlist generated from the forum database. If the forum administrator does not have access to a tool like phpmyadmin and isn't comfortable writing his/her own query script, there's no way of generating that commonly-used wordlist.


(27 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

I agree. "Good" and "time" might be very significant words depending on the forum context -- for example, in a forum about racing.

Thinking about this, it seems that what is or isn't a stopword is quite dependent on the nature of the forum. What is a stopword for one forum may not be for another.

Which suggests the idea of a script to allow forum administrators to customize his/her stopwords; either a standalone script or something incorporated into the admin panel. I'd see it doing something like this:

1. On first run, briefly explain the concept of stopwords and why a forum administrator may want to customize the list;
2. On clicking a "Next" button, produce a list of common words (like the query above), except that the output would be loaded in a form, with each word a checkbox item;
3. The admin would checkmark some common words, and click a "Add to stopword list" button at page bottom.


(27 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

I few more candidate stopwords -- these appeared in my common words and are also included in the two lists above:

now well good time back still sure really

In the style sheet,

.body {
    border:1px solid #D7D7D7;

The height: 100px is causing the problem. deusiah needs to just remove it.

dhdesign wrote:

dhdesign says he'd prefer to "...leave it in the user's hands to make the choice". That's exactly what I mean, except that today, the user is able to make that choice using his/her web browser technology, according to his/her decision for each individual link. The profile option represents a decision of the webmaster about which links (e.g., "external" links) should be opened in new windows. Again, that decision should be the user's to make.

The option in the profile still leaves it in the user's hands - it is each member's choice as to how the links open, not the webmaster's.  I do understand what you're saying - each of us surfs the net in a different manner and have different preferences.  I'd just prefer to have the option still available for each user and let them make their own choice. 

And, just to clarify, it's "she'd prefer", not "he"...;)

Well I said I'd shut up on this, and I will smile -- except to offer an apology on the "he'd" part.

dhdesign wrote:
Rickard wrote:

It's a classic discussion. I like my links to open in the same window, but the general public seems to prefer that at least external links (to pages outside of the current domain) open in new windows. An alternative to the current behavior is to add some logic to the parser to open local links in the same window and external links in a new window. What do you think?

I would prefer to have external links open in a new window, and local ones in the same window.   If you are going to remove the option from the profile, then you might set it up in the code to automatically do this.

Myself, I'd prefer to see the option remain in the profile, and leave it in the user's hands to make the choice. smile

Whether the option is included or not doesn't really matter to me, but I'd just like to clarify what I said and meant.

First off, I don't think it is a classic discussion. The "classic discussion" you're referring to pertains to whether links should be coded to open in a new window or the same window, perhaps with a determining factor like whether or not they are "external" links. I think that discussion (and method of HTML coding) is passe. What I raised is a new discussion.

Modern web browsers (like Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and others, especially on non-windows platforms) are about putting more control of web browsing in the hands of users. Thats why we see features like popup-blocking, javascript controls that prevent (for example) statusbar hijacking, the ability to load alternate stylesheets, etc. Included with this are features that allow the user to control how and when new windows (or tabs) are opened. It is my discussion, everytime I click a link, whether it should open in the same window or a new window (or tab), not the webmaster's decision.

dhdesign says he'd prefer to "...leave it in the user's hands to make the choice". That's exactly what I mean, except that today, the user is able to make that choice using his/her web browser technology, according to his/her decision for each individual link. The profile option represents a decision of the webmaster about which links (e.g., "external" links) should be opened in new windows. Again, that decision should be the user's to make.

Dividing links into "internal" and "external" classes may be seen as entirely arbitrary decision by some users (like me). When I'm reading a post in a BB and the post contains a link to another post on the same board (an "internal" link), I might want to open that link in a new window (or tab) and preserve my place in the original window. When I post a request for help in a BB and someone responds with a reference web site that will help solve my problem (an "external" link), I may want to go to the new site immediately in the current window -- I'm done with that BB for now.

Web links are interconnections between information sources, and how each person uses those sources will differ. Modern web browsers provide users with much more efficient and flexible capabilities for traversing the Internet. Web sites should (IMO) get out of the "open in a new window" business and let users manage their own web browsing with the tools they have.

Just my 2 cents. I'll shut up now smile

Rickard wrote:

Why have an options for showing/hiding smiliey icons when I've already setup my account to never display them at all? You see the problem?

Because (as I understand it) the per-post option determines how smilies in the post are treated for all users, not just you or me.

If I type "the ratio is y:x for blah" I want everyone who views the post to see y:x, and not have the :x part converted to a smilie for those who have smilies enabled.

Perhaps the problem is not with the option per se, but with the wording of the label attached to the option. Maybe it could be phrased something like, "Disable graphical smilies for everyone". Just a thought.

Jansson wrote:
sleddog wrote:
Jansson wrote:

That requires fullscreen on 1024x768 hmm

No, it renders fine at 640x480 without horizontal scrolling.

Well.. Yeah, but then there is to little space in my opinion

The only difference I see is that three of the option labels wrap to two lines. Perhaps you're seeing something diffferent?

Steal it? That's kinky dude smile

I take it that "kinky" is not good?

Jansson wrote:

That requires fullscreen on 1024x768 hmm

No, it renders fine at 640x480 without horizontal scrolling.

This is in reference to the Revising the profile options for PunBB 1.2 topic. As requested by Rickard I'm posting it in a new thread.

I suggested that the layout of the profile might be changed (just by shuffling the HTML) to improve its usability. I don't know if this altered version is actually any better, but for what its worth here it is:

PunBB Profile Mockup

(It's just a static file. Clicking any link except the [?] links  just reloads the page...)


(17 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

zc923 wrote:
Amadiere wrote:

The situation isn't always as simple as freedom of speech.
I'm myself looking for something along the lines of this rather desperately because I'm in a position where I have been asked to create a forum where, if the public were able to post anything, I would be putting my job on the line.

It's not a case of "this person is being mean to someone", but it's a case of website links and similar.

Posted my reply so I can listen for replies also wink (and the subscribe link was further from my mouse pointer and i'm lazy).

Hmn. Maybe put something in the rules. At this type of situation, a Legal escape hatch is always good. Then again, nothing is fool proof.

I recall reading that in US law the owner/administrator of a website cannot be held legally responsible for content on the site if the content is contributed via a publication system open for use by the public -- that is a paraphrase from memory smile  I'd be interested to hear about laws in other countries. I can't find anything similar or relevant for my country (Canada).

Of course legal responsibilty is one thing, displeasing your employer is something entirely different.


(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

I believe some if not all of the FAQ applications have memberships so multiple contributors are supported. I also like Wikis, but it raises some interesting issues wrt documentation. For example, if everyone can contribute, who will ensure that the text is in fact accurate? About the only thing worse that no documentation is incorrect documentation smile


(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Maybe a FAQ, question/answer approach with categories might be appropriate...

A few examples culled from freshmeat.net (I haven't used any of these):


Rickard wrote:
sleddog wrote:

I don't think restructuring the profile page is a huge job, it's mostly re-shuffling the HTML output. But hey, you're the boss smile

Do show me what you have in mind, but do it in a new topic.

I'm stretched to the limit with work now, but I'll try to put something together on the weekend if that's not too late.