Multiple Quotes

Wonder how hard it'd be to port it over.

maybe a neat way to do it would be a javascipt solution on the post reply page which meant you could click quote on the topic review and it added it to the end of the post

its only 1 bit of javascript, theres hardly any javascript on punbb, and it woouldn't affect the quick post only the post.php display and most people cache files...

Just a personal note:
Cant say i like JavaScript

I can't say I generally like JavaScript heavy applications myself, but it is undoubtably where the web is going. I don't think having servers that supply raw data and clients doing all the processing is that far away anymore. Just have a look at Gmail. You all like that don't you?

Not with old school modems :-)

I agree on the theory, very much. With some restraints on what's asked of the clients (I really *don't* want to see a "minimal cpu/ram/video configuration" in front of webpages), I think it's a good idea mainly because that would put much more control into the hands of the client (is proprietary protocols don't take over), and because when a server serve 300 clients, 300 low ends computers are way more powerful than one or two high end server. It's cheaper, so it's good for free and personnal internet.

The thing is, I don't see that in present days technology. How do you do that ? As far as I know, these days you have to use Javascript (or something similar). On some instances it may be good, because the download and execution time of the script is inferior with that technology. But it's rare. On most case, it's quicker for the client to do the work server side.

Actually, it depends on how you see your punBB "speed" quality. Speed of server side execution ? Speed of how many clients you might serve at on time with a specific server ? Speed of client learning curve ? Speed of client everyday's use ? Speed of content delivery ?

"Speed" and ease of use can be very similar, if you have to load 5 pages to do something, it's probably speedier to do it on the first instance in one page.

On this particular feature, I don't know if it's possible to load a javascript with a javascript. I explain myself : multiple quoting can be quicker and better on the client side. But you don't need multiple quoting on every day, on every post, on every HTTP GET you use (well I almost do on some forums, but I'm a freak ). So is it possible to have a link or a button somewhere, once you are in reply mode, that would load a "multi quote script" on demand and this script would insert appropriate quoting when you click on the others posts in the thread ?

So the first script, it's a kind of a loader machine. Maybe 2 or 3 lines of code, very light. And the second script is loaded only when you need it, with no Apache socket/sessions waste, no bandwith waste, and so on.

In fact, that would be a nice profile/config feature. Some kind of "external JS plugins" that the admin can active or desactive by default, or by categories/forums, and the user can select (and so override admin) if it's activated or de-activated by default for him.

Not sure if I'm understandable...

Never used it, I don't need it and I'm not fond of people reading my emails :-)

Yep, my posts were broader. If you want you might as well split the thread to take my OT in there right place.

True indeed, to the point where the user quit the waiting because it's too long. Below that point, all good. Hence the "loader on demand".

On that "point", on real everyday use of the web, it's very hard to determine, especially from your point of view (delivering software). You have to take into account the things a "basic webmaster' want to add, the others broad basic pre-requisites scripts (like IE7). Not much margin to work with.

First of all because some users de-activate javascript, or use a non-javascript client. If you want javascript to be a pre-requisite of casual surfing, you have to forget them.

But that's for some basic apps, on the other hand the recent proliferation of PHP web game would gain a *lot* with more javascript (for some time now I play a little hilarious french game, like a satiric dungeon monster bashing, it's maybe 5 mns a day. All the actions in the game result in a reload of the page ? 100% server side ? that's a huge waste).

But for some features on a forum, like the thread read/not read I was refering too, I'm really not sure javascript is the answer (and in that case I'm really sure it's not as much a feature as it is a definition of the tool, i.e. a forum). I may be wrong, that's why I'm testing it, but ...

Again, I agree on the theory; not the idea that could be done with nowadays protocols and standards. But I could be wrong, for example I don't know the bandwith and server consumption of XUL.

And there is another trouble with wide and heavy client side, that's new hardware client. Let's take commons forum features, and say put half of them client side. Are you sure a pda or a pocket phone can handle that much ? They will, someday. But right now, you add an item of worry for webmasters. They have to worry about browsers bugs, plateform bugs, end-user needs (as in real, actual and reasonnable ones) and desires (as in futiles useless gadgets), faulty or cryptic writing of standards, server bugs, user hardware, user bandwith, server bandwith, and I forgot some. Adding user cpu power at hand ? Ouch ^^

That's what they do to target ads Email is cheap, storage too, I don't see the needs for gmail. I admire their implementation of mail threading (something Qualcomm did iirc but never implementend on Eudora, I still don't know why), but that's it. I don't use webmail or IMAP, so I don't need 1gB, and if I did use IMAP that would be quite ridiculous (I have around 600mB of emails, not counting attachements, that's several gB with them). But that's me, if some people need to save $2 or $3 to have a decent email provider that's there choice :-)