Abusing <big> tags
-
Maybe @boomzilla just filled their logs? Must log all the stuffs. All the stuffs.
-
i'm making an exception here.
There doesn't appear to be any particular benefit to having more than one of those badges, but I certainly have no objection to getting another one.
-
-
Hmmmm, AdBlock was preventing meta.d from loading. Jesus Christ @boomzilla, what font size is that??
-
I cannot load raw over there. How many big tags did you put in?
-
I just copied the markup that @mott555 used in his OP.
-
View source got it. I am slow on the uptake today. Not sure what I was expecting, but I was not expecting text to be multiple screens high.
@mott555 is a genius, an evil genius.
-
[omitted]
-
-
Takes breath....
https://meta.discourse.org/t/big-css-bug-makes-really-big-text/23228?u=boomzilla
<img src="/uploads/default/11570/6c608bd5f56c5c70.png" width="667" height="500">
Jeff just closed the topic.
Also, my scrollwheel is not working in this topic.
-
Yeah, but it's closed because robot said he fixed it, so that's standard.
Although jeff closing non fixed topics is also pretty standard.
-
-
Yeah, but it's closed because robot said he fixed it, so that's standard.
<small>Although jeff closing non fixed topics is also pretty standard.</small>
I had low expectations.
-
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/abusing-big-tags/5566?preview-style=5ac5a5e9-c6ed-4197-9ec3-40811fd6ee5dj
Thanks.If anyone wants to see what the thread looks like without my CSS hack in.
Huh. The link in your post oneboxed in the quote.
-
@Zecc - Days Since Last Discourse Bug: 0
-
Huh. The link in your post oneboxed in the quote.
It probably removed the space at the start of the line I deliberately put in to stop it oneboxing.
-
Personally I am more curious if you can crash the JS by dumping a stupid amount of nested HTML.
Hint: There's ~4k tags buried in here V
[omitted]
-
Not any slower than normal on Firefox. I was unable to full-quote you though.
-
on Chrome. no problem
@delfinom said:Personally I am more curious if you can crash the JS by dumping a stupid amount of nested HTML.
Hint: There's ~4k tags buried in here V
<big><big><small><big><small><big><big><small><big><big><small><big><big>[snip]<big><big><small><big><big><small><big><big><small>Test</div>without that snip in there i can't save though:
-
on Chrome. no problem
without that snip in there i can't save though: <img src="/uploads/default/11622/b7663dceca45baeb.png" width="690" height="213">
Have we tried to overflow that number yet?
-
good luck.
-
Chrome did not like that...
-
how far did you get before it cried uncle?
-
About 1.6 million characters.
-
-
About 1.6 million characters.
How long did it take you to type that many characters? ;)
-
How long did it take you to type that many characters? ;)
About 1.6 million Discoseconds™.
-
Was that a Hanzo edit or does Discourse no longer follow one-directional linear time?
I think you've witnessed one of those temporal bugs that Jeff was talking about.
-
https://github.com/awesomerobot/discourse/commit/bcb03474d6e11cd7b3aaccc4a765c2a0068b5028
I suppose that does fix the issue, but now there's a mix of [s]browser-zoomable[/s] relative sizes and [s]unzoomable[/s] fixed pixel sizes. I'd have gone for stripping the nested<big>
s and<small>
s from the cooked post.Either way works; I'm just expressing a preference.
Edit to test browser zooming
Hmm... Firefox does zoom pixel-sized text properly.
-
stripping the nested <big>s and <small>s from the cooked post
That would probably create more parsing bugs that it would solve.
-
so does Chrome. i think it lays everything out first, then applies zoom.
-
By the way, wouldn’t something like
big { font-size: 1.5em; } big big big { font-size: 1em; }
work ?
-
Tried it with
<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <style type="text/css"> big { font-size: 1.5em; } big big big { font-size: 1em; } </style> </head> <body>
[code]Text
Text
Text
Text
</body> </html> [/code] And I got So, erm, yes, it would. Assuming browsers other than Firefox do the same thing.And the second CSS rule wouldn't need to be
big big big
, justbig big
. And, with a similar trick played withsmall
, would be the simplest, easiest, most testable, and overall bestestest solutionSo it'll never get done
Yes, I know the Official Cute Fox thread thing is over
-
Yes, I know the Official Cute Fox thread thing is over
:-D but foxes is cute wherever they are!
-
the simplest, easiest, most testable, and overall bestestest solution
So it'll never get done
Discourse development in a nutshell.
-
-
that.... that is not a fox...
nice try though!
-
On the contrary, it was approximately the first result in a search for "uncute foxes". (you'll get offered "uncut foxes" at first, which is just pictures of women in fur coats.)
-
-
the cute fox thread is =>>> that way
-
-
it's a fox.
fox = cute.
;-)
-
lol
-
-
yep. i'm sure. :-)
-
-
that appears to be a squirrel. squirrels are food not cute.
-
DailyWhatTheHeck
-
still a squirrel.
-
Let me try something else