Link Click Tracker bug with anchors
-
Continuing the discussion from Is it possible to link to a specific point in a users post?:
<a name="anchor">Anchor test</a>
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to link to a specific point of a users post?
<a href="#anchor">Maybe with Anchors?</a>
It looks like when you attempt to open the anchor test link (well, with no href it's an anchor but that just makes the sentence confusing) you get a blank page, but it works fine if you open it in a new tab. It appears to be related to the link click tracker as this is the address I get dumped at: http://what.thedailywtf.com/clicks/track?url=undefined&post_id=18294&topic_id=1213
-
Sure I've raised this point before - it's why there's a series of posts in the FAQ, rather than one long article - because I couldn't figure out how to get anchors to work.
-
Who reads FAQs?
-
Some people do, but it is 99.99% not the people that need to.
-
I feel like if your software needs a full FAQ to anti-train people on how to use that software, maybe some of the design considerations made are a little too far over the top of expected software behavior.
FAQs about rules, sure.
FAQ about how to use the software, and the multitude of bugs and interactions that software has created? ...
-
Oh, we have tons of sites using Discourse with no need for instructions at all.
Filed under: this place is 'special'
-
-
Potentially a false statement, I did see the discourse software over at the developer twitch.tv site. That was a little disconcerting.
-
-
I would agree with other communities not trying to [b]ab[/b]use it as much as us, but just normal, typical, standard forum going... I believe we have [b]some[/b] competition, somewhere.
Filed under: It's like the universe. There's life out there somewhere, right? ... Right?
-
I'm thinking of the number of features we actually use. If for no other reason than to try to break it. I don't doubt there is more traffic in some places.
-
Oh, we have tons of sites using Discourse with no need for instructions at all.
I've noticed. Which is why I created that series.
-
The fact that I can say * anywhere in my post, and a * somewhere way far down the line requiring me to escape BOTH * to be quite annoying.
Actually, I find the fact that I have to regularly use \ to escape my content, and anything with an open < and any type fake html, or emphasis just makes my tag <vanish>
-
Interesting, that's a new regression @sam introduced when he was fixing other stuff with bold:
http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?text=and++testing+
< should work fine as-is.
< should work fine as-is.
Entering HTML tags, remember that html is supported here.
Entering HTML tags, remember that <b>html is supported here</b>.
-
Sure, Html is supported here, but < fake tags > should not make the tag <vanish>
-
But that's how it works in "real" HTML, no?
If you create a HTML document with the tag
<bocephus>
in it, that tag disappears.(now, you could argue that text between
<bocephus>here</bocephus>
should appear..)
-
Except, I have to believe discourse is tokenizing the html, because if it isn't, the WTF is your software again.
-
-
I have to agree with @codinghorror here. It's specifically the forum's lack of editting your markup that causes the <faketag> to not work like you want. It's easy enough to get around, type < for your tag opener and the closetag > will work fine alone.
If they had to try to sanity check every < that you open to try to see whether they should change it to < for you, that would make a bigger mess than this poor parser already makes1.
Filed Under: You really can only make some of the people happy some of the time.1) See Quoting