What BBCodes would you like to see on SDC?

[a_lost_packet_]

Just curious, has anyone tested this with IE8's site compatibility mode turned on and turned off? Does the text field still have display issues under both settings?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just curious, has anyone tested this with IE8's site compatibility mode turned on and turned off? Does the text field still have display issues under both settings?

It's been on when I've looked at this. I'll check it with it off when I get home.

 

[doublehelix]

You might want to e-mail MS and tell them IE bites.

Hahahahaha! Don't tempt me.... :? :shock:

-dh

 

[adrenalynn]

You'd think I was the only one that regularly uses super and subscript here... Errr - ... BITE ME! Entirely possible.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually, I've started using it. I hadn't noticed for a while that it was even there.

I now insert a blank line above and below any that I use it in, that seems to be a workaround for the IE issue.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Actually, I've started using it. I hadn't noticed for a while that it was even there.

I now insert a blank line above and below any that I use it in, that seems to be a workaround for the IE issue.

For some reason, it's not making the text field display big enough to handle the displacement. Dangit.. I forget the term atm.. kerning is letter separation. super/sub would be.... _____ displacement. /whatever

Going to go check it out in IE with/without compatibility mode.

Sample for my check:

TEST TEST TEST
TEST [super]TEST[/super]TEST
TEST TEST TEST
TEST [sub]TEST[/sub] TEST
TEST TEST TEST

Ah, I think I see the problem then. It's not giving enough line separation between lines, not the field height itself. Checking.

Edit-Add - In compatibility mode, the differences are more pronounced. In normal mode, the lines are more tightly spaced together. BUT, I didn't have any "cutoff" problems in either mode. I'm at 1920x1080. I don't know if I have any special web font features enabled. I don't normally use IE.

Some classic notepad-web-design graduate can probably figure out the problem fairly quick. I'm not one of those. But, it doesn't appear to cut off text for me in my test. Checking lowercase:

test test test
test [super]test[/super] test
test test test
test [sub]test[/sub] test
test test test

I can still see all the letters. Though, it's worth noting that the deviation from the normal line appears to be more for the "superscript" than it is for "subscript" in "noncompatibility" mode. They don't appear to both be a similar distance from the mean. That's probably intentional for ease of reading. In compatibility mode, the differences look more uniform to me.

Note: For any having this problem, does clicking on the "Text Size" toggle at the top of the SDC Forum Page (next to the printing options) help any? AFAIK, it's just a two way toggle to enlarge/reduce the font size. Maybe that's the issue with some?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Sample for my check:

TEST TEST TEST
TEST [super]TEST[/super]TEST
TEST TEST TEST
TEST [sub]TEST[/sub] TEST
TEST TEST TEST

Ah, I think I see the problem then. It's not giving enough line separation between lines, not the field height itself. Checking.

test test test
test [super]test[/super] test
test test test
test [sub]test[/sub] test
test test test

OK this is now in the TWZ. Your TESTS & tests above look fine to me, right now, at work, on the same machine I've been using. Even now my post up above still looks wrong (super is fine, subscript collides). WTH ? How can your input work and mine not ? How does the input make any difference, how is there any difference in the inputs (yours to mine) ?? Even when copied via the quotation function yours "works". And this

TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST
TEST [super]TEST[/super] TEST [sub]TEST[/sub] TEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST

still doesn't. ???!!!???

 

[adrenalynn]

Actually, I've started using it. I hadn't noticed for a while that it was even there.

I now insert a blank line above and below any that I use it in, that seems to be a workaround for the IE issue.

For some reason, it's not making the text field display big enough to handle the displacement. Dangit.. I forget the term atm.. kerning is letter separation. super/sub would be.... _____ displacement. /whatever

Ah, I think I see the problem then. It's not giving enough line separation between lines, not the field height itself. Checking.

"Leading" is the term you're looking for, I believe. It comes from the days of the press and hot type, when they placed strips of hot lead in between the lines for interline spacing. And now you know... the rest of the story. I'm Paul Harvey, Good Day.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just curious, has anyone tested this with IE8's site compatibility mode turned on and turned off? Does the text field still have display issues under both settings?

So I tried switching compatibility mode on/off and there's no collisions with it off. What happens is that both the super and subscripted text is shifted (up/down) by a much lesser amount. With compatibility on the shift is nearly a whole character's height, up & down. With it off the shift up is perhaps 1/2 a line and the shift down is perhaps 1/8 of a line (different displacements, that's odd enough in it's own right). Thus even with normal line spacing (leading) there's no collisions though now the subscripting is now so "weak" it's barely noticable as a subscript. The superscript appears ... OK. So compatibility mode definitely has an effect.

I still don't understand how people using different browsers can use the same tags when typing and have it display differently on my IE8 machine.

 

[adrenalynn]

Different rendering engines. How you render a webpage is terribly complex. When I was an architect at Attachment AAC, and we were working on Pathway Access, (an early browser, pre-IE), an entire building full of architects would argue over how to render a single element for days. And it's gotten far more complicated since then.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Different rendering engines. How you render a webpage is terribly complex. When I was an architect at Attachment AAC, and we were working on Pathway Access, (an early browser, pre-IE), an entire building full of architects would argue over how to render a single element for days. And it's gotten far more complicated since then.

I would have guessed that whatever browser alp or I used, the information to say "this text is a subscript" would have been encoded the same way. Then it would have been the browser's job to decode that information, which I could well understand being done differently. But it would appear that the former is not true. That when alp writes some text, I'd imagined it like [tag]text text text[/tag], and his browser sends it to SDC's server, that this info is different from that I send when I type the same text. That or the server then reformats and resends that info differently because it came from different browsers. Just goes to show what I don't know about HTML.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Must be an IE8 issue, ...

-dh

Time for you to update this site. :lol:

http://www.iestolemylife.com/

 

[adrenalynn]

It's your browser doing the rendering. The http server neither knows nor cares what those tags mean. The database server needs to know what the equivalent bbcode tag is in html, but makes no other decisions about it.

A [ tag ] [ / tag ] gets converted at time of delivery to < tag > < / tag >from the database server to you over http. It is your browser's responsibility to say "Oh, I know what a < tag > < / tag > means! My rendering engine is supposed to puke it to the display _this way_".

My browser and your browser apparently can't agree on the correct way to vomit. Mine does it in a pretty sort of way, yours does it in a half-arsed couldn't be bothered to make sure it'd look right sort of way. Welcome to IE!

In all seriousness - it's notorious for having the absolute worst rendering, especially where CSS is concerned. When presented with a 50/50 shot, it will invariably pick the wrong answer. It's almost like the rendering engine was written against some malicious_compliance_API.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I thought about doing this earlier, but didn't because I created the post just so others could easily see how the sup/sub text reacted to their browser changes. (As well as for my own tests.)

But, for a better comparison for those interested, here's a screenpic of what I see when the page is rendered.


(Click for full image.)

Firefox 3.612, 1920x1080,32 bit, ATI Catalyst 10.2, Radeon 9600 Pro (Yeah, ancient vid card)

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

It's your browser doing the rendering. The http server neither knows nor cares what those tags mean. The database server needs to know what the equivalent bbcode tag is in html, but makes no other decisions about it.

A [ tag ] [ / tag ] gets converted at time of delivery to < tag > < / tag >from the database server to you over http. It is your browser's responsibility to say "Oh, I know what a < tag > < / tag > means! My rendering engine is supposed to puke it to the display _this way_".

My browser and your browser apparently can't agree on the correct way to vomit. Mine does it in a pretty sort of way, yours does it in a half-arsed couldn't be bothered to make sure it'd look right sort of way. Welcome to IE!

The above was my understanding. What's still a mystery to me is how a_l_p's text (with supers and subs) displays just dandy on my PC using my browser but my input, presumably using the same tags, displays like crap on the exact same machine at the same time. I can even copy and paste from a_l_p's post and have it display fine. It's as if the [ tag ] [ / tag ] from my machine gets converted differently than his [ tag ] [ / tag ] at SDC's server.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..The above was my understanding. What's still a mystery to me is how a_l_p's text (with supers and subs) displays just dandy on my PC using my browser but my input, presumably using the same tags, displays like crap on the exact same machine at the same time. I can even copy and paste from a_l_p's post and have it display fine. It's as if the [ tag ] [ / tag ] from my machine gets converted differently than his [ tag ] [ / tag ] at SDC's server.

That IS weird. Try creating a post with the differences you noted above. Then, log out, delete all your cookies. Close the browser and then restart it. Log back in and see if you still see the same results in the post you created.

 

[adrenalynn]

I agree - that would be odd. Another thing I'd say is to view-source and check the html tags themselves and see how they differ. You might need to look at the CSS if it's in some different DIV.