It's most likely not that, but it's the easiest thing to check before you start fault finding in earnest. smile

Have you checked one of the posts in the db to make sure that there's no space, (or anything else), between the http and the :?

Yup.

829

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Paul wrote:

Yes, Opera's error message is much better, not only more informative but it makes the error much easier to locate. It also gives you the option of switching to text/html if you want to view the page without fixing it immediatelly.

Just used Opera whilst tracing a slight function glitch I had. Love the XML parser error output. Sooo much better than Moz. big_smile Cheers for the pointer Paul. smile

830

(48 replies, posted in News)

ortzinator wrote:

I didn't say anything about other scripts... Why would you even compare two scripts based on the version numbers?

I didn't, but there does generally tend to be a notable increase in people mentioning larger version numbers when alternative software has upped it's primary point.

831

(48 replies, posted in News)

ortzinator wrote:

So maybe the devs should decide their own rules for versioning.

They have, and it's reached 1.3. big_smile There are no rules for versioning. They are just commonly followed/accepted norms, so to speak.

832

(5 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

The confirm_referrer function is there for security purposes. I believe cross site scripting is merely one of the attacks you have made yourself open to by removing it.

833

(2 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

You're better off using all lowercase too.

834

(48 replies, posted in News)

ortzinator wrote:

Well I'm not sure I agree with a complete rewrite being required for a new version number, but Rickard did say this:

It makes no difference whether it's labelled 1.3 or 2.0. It's not a pissing contest with other forum softwares. Primary number changes are normally used for a total rewrite, philosophy change, when you run out of .* numbers, or when you want to make people think it's a completely different beast. It still matters not a jot whatever the reason.

835

(3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

qubertman wrote:

The censored word is viagra*. I was able to register viagra. Should this have been allowed?

Yup. You would have to do viagr*, or less, for it to catch viagra.

836

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

I just said hashing 'cos I couldn't think of the proper term offhand. It wasn't intended implicitly. smile Either way, I'm easy. The final decision belongs to you and the other Dev's. smile

837

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Must admit, there are beneficial factors for both hashed and clear. At the end of the day though, it is down to you chaps on the Dev team to decide which way it goes. smile If anyone is insistent on it being hashed, they can easily alter the code themselves on their own installation. smile Or, you could have a hash/no-hash toggle option, to please both camps. big_smile

838

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

I understand what you mean. It does seem overkill in theory for what should be a one time operation. I just happen to be from the old style camp where security is concerned. Every little helps. Only if it drastically restricts ease of use would I generally err on the side of ease, where possible.

839

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Can we have it just for chuckle value then? big_smile

840

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Was trying to think of a subtle way of saying this but failed. big_smile Any muppet who can enter an incorrect password exactly the same twice is pretty much begging for things not to work properly. big_smile

841

(14 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

If one were in pedant mode, the answer would definitely be yes. big_smile A dual input and compare scenario as in the profile/registration password setup would work for finding typo's.

You're welcome. smile

[zipfile link]

844

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Rickard wrote:

And how exactly do people insert special characters into, for example, Word documents? If you're on Windows, just bring up the character map (charmap.exe). On OSX, I'm sure there's an equivalent. Or just search for the character and copy and paste it from some website. This is just as easy as searching for the entity and copy and pasting that.

Most people will neither know nor care to find out specifics like that. A large percentage of people will expect to type what they please, (within reason), and have it work, without them knowing how or why. You over-estimate the general mindset, methinks. big_smile

845

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Paul wrote:

Yes, Opera's error message is much better, not only more informative but it makes the error much easier to locate. It also gives you the option of switching to text/html if you want to view the page without fixing it immediatelly.

Cheers. smile I'll give Opera a whirl on my next debugging/testing session. The lack of info in other browsers doesn't make life easy for finding the errant code. big_smile

846

(6 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

The httpd daemon should be responsible for redirects like that, not the software.

847

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Good to know the base system is valid. Be hopes the mod creators keep to that philosophy this time round. big_smile Does Opera give more descriptive output that just the parsing error and location, as in the Moz browsers?

848

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Paul wrote:

I would have thought that anybody who has changed the doctype to use xhtml1.1 or who is using content negotiation to serve the pages as xml is not going to make such an error in the first place.

Absolutely agree on that part. smile I assume that there would still be quite a few other areas that need sanitising too to make everything 1.1 compliant, or has 1.3 progressed in that regard? If anyone, (which is why I mentioned it being a fairly moot argument), makes it fully XML compliant, they'd have far more than just the description to contend with. big_smile

849

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

No wonder I missed that then. It only mentioned p tags. big_smile

850

(54 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Smartys wrote:

Yes, but if you read the entire topic you see that we added it back in wink

I'm missing something then. I can see where it's suggested, but not actually said. big_smile