|
|
|
|
I know the board is suppossed to accept HTML code, and I have found that it does take the italics, boldface, font size and
line break
commands, but for unknown reasons it won't accept the center commands.
Any help?
In the meantime, this.....
[Updated on: Sat, 22 September 2007 17:56] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The reason is that we filter them out. We allow very basic html in order to make minor formatting changes, but we found long, long ago, in many other boards, that giving free rein to html courted disaster.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. Umm, er, I guess I guess I can understand java applets and really weird stuff. i can even understand excluding tables...but CENTER? How dangerous can that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I'm just learning HTML, I'm a programmer for mid-range systems and need to go to the next level if I'm to survive. Anyway, my book refers to CENTER as a "deprecated" element, which means newer systems may not recognize it. Also, it depends how you use it. For instance, I find that it works to center an entire table but not for what's in an individual table element, though some books show it valid for both.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I tried the newer one. Oddly, you can't even type the commands to use to describe them without the software here deleting the text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are various different versions of HTML -- both original HTML and XHTML. This site uses HTML version 4.0. The best way to find out what is valid and what is not for a given version is to look on the World Wide Web Consortium's web site at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/
In this case:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/
On the whole, 'deprecated' elements can remain for years, and continue to be included in newer browsers for backwards compatibility, but these days style sheets are very much preferred. That would normally mean a separate style section or something like < div style="text-align: center">. Unfortunately that doesn't work on this board either.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks David! I did try everything I could think of. I know a little HTML and am trying to lean more because i want to do a website for myself this year, sometime. Also some of us want to get the school to let us revise and jazz up the school's web pages which now are mega lame. But thanks again for your help and I'll check out the sites you listed!
Jonny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
We protect from pretty much everything you can think of. It's just one of those things. 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The W3C is the horse's mouth, so to speak -- the Word Wide Web Consortium are the people who design the standards.
Minor pedantic point -- I was wrong when I said the site was HTML 4.0; it's only the forum that's HTML 4.0 (transitional version). The site itself is apparently XHTML 1.0. You can tell by looking at the first line of a page using 'view source' in the browser.
If you're interested in these things, it's useful to know the difference between HTML and XHTML. XHTML is a form of XML and much more rigourously defined. I prefer it for that reason -- it's more like a "proper" programming language (though it's not one, for assorted reasons) whereas bog-standard HTML is a bit more outdated, fuzzily defined, harder to write neatly and more unpredictable between browsers.
If you design web pages, perhaps the most useful site on the web for that is the (X)HTML validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/
You will rapidly find that most pages on the web don't validate -- that's because the people who wrote them are sloppy coders.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
We recognised that the forum would never be XHTML compliant, precisely because we allow some user added hmtl. The site itself is validated rigorously against XHMTL whenever a page is posted. The exceptions are the historic guestbook pages which we could, I suppose, filter, but the exercise is pointless.
There will be a few other exceptional pages.
I was waiting for you to find out that the site was not the same standard as the forum
[Updated on: Sun, 23 September 2007 20:15]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac OS wants me to correct 'rigorous' to 'rigourous'. But the former looks right to me, even in British English. Google overwhelmingly votes 'rigorous'. But then Google is largely American.
P.P.S. Am I the only one worried about the comma in, 'This page has been submitted, please be patient' (which you get if you hit the preview or submit buttons twice in quick succession)? A full stop, semi-colon, colon or dash, even an exclamation or ellipsis would all be right. But a comma is definitely wrong.
This page has been submitted. Please be patient
This page has been submitted; please be patient
This page has been submitted: please be patient
This page has been submitted -- please be patient
This page has been submitted! Please be patient
This page has been submitted.... Please be patient
Good Lord, I'm getting weirder every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> Mac OS wants me to correct 'rigorous' to 'rigourous'. But the former looks right to me, even in British English. Google overwhelmingly votes 'rigorous'. But then Google is largely American.
I'd have said that 'rigourous' wasn't even an acceptable variant in UK English - at prep school I was taught that it was quite definitely wrong. 'Rigorous' every time!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no recollection of ever writing 'rigourous' except in the great-great-grandparent post, because I accepted what the spell checker threw at me ('rigourously'). I will leave it to give context, but I am fighting the urge to change it.
|
|
|
|
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
