Fix these inline images vote obama today

[Souffle]

Current inline image resizing is dumb as hell, so dumb. Resizing tall images for no real reason to smaller than a penny.

Howe 2 fix:

1: Img max-width 800px. Hover or click to expand inline to full size. Image resizing protocol should not infer to or refer to the images height in any way shape or form
2: Quote img max-width 300px, hover or click to expand inline to full size
3: get rid of nested quotes what is this 2001?
4: max img tags per post == 2

Please bring back good images, Thanks in advance

 

[Shirotsume]

To clarify: He's asking if anyone agrees with the changes proposed.

Currently things work like this:

1. Images are resized so that their largest dimension is 500px, and the other dimension is proportionally scaled with it. This is to prevent too-wide images from breaking the tables, or too-long images forcing you to scroll for a mile. If you click on the image, it opens in a new window. Inline re sizing on click cannot be done sanely.
2. Quote images have normal restrictions, and there are no ways to implement them sanely. This cannot be done.
3. Up to four quotes may be nested at the moment.
4. Max number of pictures per post is, I believe, 5 or 10.

EDIT: and for those wondering, I told him to post this here. So far I've only gotten people liking the current setup, but if more people like the suggestion than dislike, this can be implemented instead. Post your thoughts.

 

[Souffle]

To clarify: He's asking if anyone agrees with the changes proposed.

Currently things work like this:

1. Images are resized so that their largest dimension is 500px, and the other dimension is proportionally scaled with it. This is to prevent too-wide images from breaking the tables, or too-long images forcing you to scroll for a mile. If you click on the image, it opens in a new window. Inline re sizing on click cannot be done sanely.
2. Quote images have normal restrictions, and there are no ways to implement them sanely. This cannot be done.
3. Up to four quotes may be nested at the moment.
4. Max number of pictures per post is, I believe, 5 or 10.

EDIT: and for those wondering, I told him to post this here. So far I've only gotten people liking the current setup, but if more people like the suggestion than dislike, this can be implemented instead. Post your thoughts.

1: imo get rid of the image resizing for something tall then. There's tons of tall comics/4koma that could be posted that are long, and clicking to open them up in a new window/tab defeats the purpose of inlining them anyway. PS read 2
2: weird forum software
3: that works
4: that works

 

[PCHeintz72]

To clarify: He's asking if anyone agrees with the changes proposed.

Currently things work like this:

1. Images are resized so that their largest dimension is 500px, and the other dimension is proportionally scaled with it. This is to prevent too-wide images from breaking the tables, or too-long images forcing you to scroll for a mile. If you click on the image, it opens in a new window. Inline re sizing on click cannot be done sanely.
2. Quote images have normal restrictions, and there are no ways to implement them sanely. This cannot be done.
3. Up to four quotes may be nested at the moment.
4. Max number of pictures per post is, I believe, 5 or 10.

EDIT: and for those wondering, I told him to post this here. So far I've only gotten people liking the current setup, but if more people like the suggestion than dislike, this can be implemented instead. Post your thoughts.

I'd keep the resizing as is.

 

[rdde]

Quote images have normal restrictions, and there are no ways to implement them sanely.

What is lacking with "blockquote img { max-width: 300px; }" and reusing the click on image to open in a new window?

 

[Shirotsume]

Because there isn't a tag for quote.

 

[rdde]

MyBB reuses blockquote for non-quotes?

 

[Souffle]

Just a test

Edit

blockquote img {
max-width: 300px !important;
}

3 seconds in stylish

Edit 2: another test outside a quote

 

[Souffle]

Just a test

Edit

blockquote img {
max-width: 300px !important;
}

3 seconds in stylish

Edit 2: another test outside a quote

And this shows both images quoted and resized in a nested quote

But wait there's more

blockquote img:hover {
max-width: 1000px !important;
}

hover over it and you get a pic that goes up to 1k px wide, but wont reach it unless it's actually that big.

Fuck all the css is coming back to me again this is nostagically nightmarish

Replace blockquote with whatever the div id/class (i forget which would be appropriate) for posts and adjust the px size accordingly. Took me like 10 minutes to recall this then 10 seconds to implement.

 

[Shirotsume]

Hovering is a terrible way to resize images- the worst, in fact.

I was, however, incorrect. There is a div/class for quotes, which I didn't find in my (admittedly short because I had other things to worry about) google.

So on that note, let's see if anyone actually supports any of this.

 

[Souffle]

the quotes on this forum are just <\blockquote/>, not a div nor a class, just a xhtml code

this is why blockquote img works fine in any stylesheet

 

[Dark Knight Gafgar]

>Fix these inline images vote obama today

Under that kind of logic we should leave the images just as they are.

 

[Vexarian]

How about we come to a middle ground.

Like impeaching Souffle from his position as King of the Ponies.

 

[Dark Knight Gafgar]

Do we get to make glue afterwards?

 

[Vexarian]

Obviously.

I mean, what else are we going to do with all of these fucking ponies?

 

[rdde]

the quotes on this forum are just <\blockquote/>, not a div nor a class, just a xhtml code

< blockquote> belongs to HTML; XHTML only reuses it. Also, XHTML's successor is HTML5, whose doctype is < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC>. It's time to get (back) onto the new/old bandwagon, you hack.

Also, this forum's thing for eating HTML in our posts tends to be aggravating.

I support the image max-width resizing and the quoted image resizing, but not the hover.

 

[Dark Knight Gafgar]

Obviously.

I mean, what else are we going to do with all of these fucking ponies?

If we were British we could try eating them...

 

[Shirotsume]

the quotes on this forum are just <\blockquote/>, not a div nor a class, just a xhtml code

< blockquote> belongs to HTML; XHTML only reuses it. Also, XHTML's successor is HTML5, whose doctype is < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC>. It's time to get (back) onto the new/old bandwagon, you hack.

Also, this forum's thing for eating HTML in our posts tends to be aggravating.

I support the image max-width resizing and the quoted image resizing, but not the hover.

We could fix it eating our HTML and other related XML-like tags, but it would break a LOT of links that were brought in.

 

[Vexarian]

I don't suppose we could make the code tags work like they do on other forums, and break all html/php tags inside of them, so they display but don't actually function?

 

[rdde]

How about creating a new

 tag that doesn't neuter the HTML content? That way, we can have default neuter the HTML content, except when it is within the [html]

tags.

And why would most of the links brought in be broken? We didn't had HTML support in oTFF.

 

[Vexarian]

We also didn't bring old TFF's database over directly. We crawled it with a bot, and then punched the results until it resembled an actual database and used that.

Apparently somewhere in that transition, some things went wacky.

 

[Shirotsume]

What vex said. That's also the reason we have wonky formatting on our old stories, which I'm pissed about >.> I deliberately used UTF-8 to stop that shit >.>

Also, I believe [ php][/ php] are the tags you're looking for. Possibly [ code][/ code]

 

[Vexarian]

I played with [ code][/ code] in this thread, in a preview and it ate the html. Not sure about the php though.

[strong]pants[/strong] <strong>pants</strong>

PHP works. Everybody use that.

 

[Shirotsume]

...Why the hell would the code tags eat HTML. Like... buh... what.

 

[rdde]

I see what you mean about the links imported from oTFF. You imported them verbatim from your scan, instead of reprocessing them back into [ url=] [ /url] first.

:-/