Rickard wrote:

I'm not sure. That's Paul's area smile

One potential change regarding the tpl files is that each style will have its own set of tpl files.

Really? Well, that makes even further style customization possible, very cool. And its optional, so you can keep it simple and only deviate on certain styles. Well done guys.

New markup looks good. I had to add something like #punisolate to my floated site, remember? Glad to see it make it into the default layout.

God, whats with the poll/PM requests. Especially PMs. Isn't that what email is for people? I've never understood private messages.


(121 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Wow Rickard, this is very cool. Thanks for sharing, looking forward to it.


(67 replies, posted in News)

Connorhd wrote:

Security flaws won't mean 1.3 is released, it will be released when there are new features, and 2.0 will be released if Rickard decides to basically rewrite PunBB

I don't see how it can possibly be written better then it is.

And that says a lot. Bravo Rickard.


(4 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)

Arvid wrote:

But I won't complain unless you start saying Soccer instead of Football, then i'll complain! wink

We have formed a fragile compromise. If we're lucky, it will hold, if not, God help us.


Alright, forget it then, I concede. I hadn't thought of those particular scenarios. Thanks for enlightening me Smartys!

Well, I definitely didn't think of those reasons (esp. pruning old posts).

Perhaps a "update post count" check box (available only to moderators+) then upon deleting a post? Or is that adding unneeded complexity?


(4 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)

Well, there you go. I didn't know that.

I think it should be the US spelling, but thats probably because I am in the US smile

Although, if you wanted it to be correct for the most people...

Population of United Kingdom: 60,441,457
Population of United States: 295,734,134

Quick Google search also shows twice as many US households (as a percent of population) are online as UK households.

But whatever, I won't complain unless you start saying colour. Then I will complain.

Jansson wrote:

No, the post count is reffering to how many posts the user has made. Not how many there is in the database.

But if they make a post, and I delete it, for all intensive purposes they haven't made it.

I don't see why deleting a post shouldn't update the poust count. I think everyone probably expects the post count to reflect how many posts the user actually has on the forums. Find me someone who wants the current behavior.

Would be easy to, just update the post count of the user when deleting the post.

Just had one of my forum members point out to me that "Set your localisation options" should be "Set your localization options".

Minor, yes, but should be correct.


(67 replies, posted in News)

Paul wrote:
Speechless wrote:

....when are we going to have a fairly stable version?
[fairly stable means: last about 10months-2years]

If a web app goes that long between fixes it doesn't mean its stable, it is more likely to mean that the developers are not owning up to and fixing security issues.

I agree. This constant attention is definitely a good thing, even though it shows how lazy I am. My Punbb is a franken 1.5 beast with various security patches applied by hand. I am still procrastinating a proper update until 1.3, as I know I'll have to rewrite a bunch of my forum anyway.

Lazyness! Glad Rickard doesn't suffer as badly as I do!


(67 replies, posted in News)

Thanks Rickard, I'll get on it later tonight.

Aren't you supposed to be working on 1.3 smile

Shouldn't deleting a post decrease the user's post count by one?


(101 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Am I correct that the vulnerability fixed in 1.2.7 only effects forums with register_globals on?


(15 replies, posted in News)

Thanks Rickard.


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Paul wrote:

badrad: thanks but thats the standard solution and the one I'm already using. Its working out what to put in the hidden portions which is the problem particularly when trying to use whats already available.

Ok, cool. It was new to me though so I thought I'd point it out. Sounds like you got it under control.

Paul wrote:

Related to this. Does anybody actualy use the topic pages on viewforum e.g.

Actually, I do smile Although I guess I could just as easily hit last post.


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

badrad wrote:
Paul wrote:

The real problem with 1.3 and the main reason for the delay is WCAG Checkpoint 13.1 which basically says you can't use the same link text for links which point to different locations.

Yuck, that one is a pain in the ass. Just look at this page, there are multiple "E-mail", "Website", and "Quote" links that lead to different places.

Hey Paul, on this subject, check this out:


Essentially using a span and some CSS you could have a link that said "Email User X" but hide everything but "Email". Looks the same to visual users, screenreaders get the full useful link.

Wouldnt that help satisfy 13.1?


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Cool, glad I could help.


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Paul wrote:

The real problem with 1.3 and the main reason for the delay is WCAG Checkpoint 13.1 which basically says you can't use the same link text for links which point to different locations.

Yuck, that one is a pain in the ass. Just look at this page, there are multiple "E-mail", "Website", and "Quote" links that lead to different places.

Yet how are you supposed to fix that? Sure, the "E-mail" link could easily be changed to "E-mail User X", but what about "Quote"? "Quote post 50571"?

Honestly, personally with that guideline I do my best to reach it (in fact, I think on my site that has the forum the forum is the only part that doesn't), but don't sweat it if there are a few things that don't.

OFFTOPIC: If you've noticed that you can scroll the Google ads on these forums by a few pixels in Firefox, I have a pretty good fix for it. It would be especially easy on this forum because of the white background (simply use CSS to give the iframe the full height it really is, 65px), although I wouldn't complain if you checked out the rest of my fix, as your a CSS God and the fix isn't working 100% in Opera yet.


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Paul wrote:

A bit heavy on the css side but see how it degrades without the stylesheet.

Sexy. I don't think that CSS is too heavy either.

If we are ditching tables *just for the sake of not using tables*, an argument could be made that the forum view is indeed tabular data and thus semantically ok to be an a table.

If we are ditching tables for added flexibility and accessiblity, then its all good. Are you planning a tableless design Paul, or just experimenting?

And off topic, I forgot will 1.3 be compatable with application/xhtml+xml?


(36 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Paul wrote:

I think you can forget your dream of small stylesheets. The current trend is exactly the opposite... The reality is that the less markup you use then the larger and more complex the stylesheets become. I think most people have concluded that heavier but cached stylesheets are a reasonable price to pay for lighter simpler web pages.


You have also got the relationship betwen using tables and the complexity of css the wrong way round. Tableless layouts require more and fancier css than tables.

Well said. I work with CSS all the time in my job, and Paul is right on the mark here.

Paul wrote:

Personally I'm coming round to the idea of replacing data tables with tableless designs but not because of the reasons usually given. There are now three times as many mobile phones as computers and pretty soon the majority of them will be web enabled. We could be getting to the point where people will expect web pages to work on handheld devices rather than simply hoping they do. The unfortunate truth is that even semantically correct properly marked up data tables look like crap on a narrow format device.

Like many other CSS designers, I've long ago ditched tables (although I understand the difficulty this can cause), for many reasons, including handhelds. I only use tables now for tabular data, something that I've only had on one site I've designed so far.

I would be happy to see PunBB *eventually* become tableless, although its not a huge priority, especially since I'll have to redo my styles. Of course, I'll probably have to do that for 1.3 anyway.


(71 replies, posted in News)

Thanks for the reply. I'll give it a shot when I get time to upgrade PunBB - hopefully sometime soon.


(71 replies, posted in News)

OK, I'm going to sound like an idiot here, but it says

"If your files are located outside the PunBB directory tree, I recommend that you create symbolic links in the include/user/ directory."

How would I go about doing that?

Tobi wrote:

The biggest strength of PunBB in my opinion is that you can add any feature that you like in an hour.
That's the magic of clean code, not the phpBB-help-I-got-lost-featuremania.

Amen. PunBB's code it so clean in never ceases to amaze me...makes doing little customizations take minutes not hours.


(15 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Well, thats what a punwrap2 would have to be made for.

Thanks again for helping me with this Paul.

I do think this solution should be noted in the documentation/css for other people who experience it.


(15 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

So wrap it all in a #punwrap2 and set it to width = 100%?

Just tried that, and while it did make the div I am containing punbb in clear as tall as punbb is, punbb itself was still invisible. Perhaps I didnt understand properly what you said.

Actually, just applying width = 100% to punwrap worked just fine, and didnt mess it up in other browsers either (havent tested mac). Seems like we have a pretty bullet proof solution here.


(15 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Paul wrote:

I was thinking the same thing myself. The only problem is that if somebody is say using absolute positioning or some wierd combination of nested floats for their website, will there by any side effects in particular browsers. It would need some thorough testing I think.

Well, my site has a pretty complex layout, and with floating this it is a nested float, and these are my test results using this new method:

  Various gecko browsers - perfect.
  IE 6 - perfect.
  IE 5.5 - For some reason doesnt wanna launch for me anymore.
  IE 5 - Works perfectly, so IE 5.5 probably works perfect too.
  Opera 8 - perfect
  Opera 7 - punbb dissapears completely
  Opera 6 - Floats arent handled correctly, punbb placed incorrectly

   Various gecko browsers - perfect
   Safari 1.2 and 2.0 - perfect
   Mac IE - didnt test because my site doesnt work in mac IE.
   Opera 7 - same as windows
   Opera 8 - perfect.

So, as far as I see only two are bad, Opera 6 and below (which I dont care about, I dont try to support them), and Opera 7 (Id like to support Opera 7, so...).

I'm happy to test any more.

Paul wrote:

An alternative is to put it in base.css commented out with a note to uncomment it if somebody is having trouble with their website.

I think that should definitely be done at least.