Search options (Page 2 of 3)

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

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

Thanks.

I haven't progressed as far as a "plan", but the idea is there 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

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.

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

http://www.edgewall.com/products/trac/

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.

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.

In the style sheet,

.body {
    background:#F4F4F4;
    height:100px;
    border:1px solid #D7D7D7;
    border-top:0px;
    padding:10px;
    margin-bottom:10px;
}

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

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

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

I take it that "kinky" is not good?

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