Xenforo



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    did i say that?

    Yes, just not explicitly.

    It's the only way your response makes sense as a reply to fbmac's question.

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    what exactly did you want to accomplish with that comment?

    I wanted to get $20,000,000 in capital investments. But it hasn't worked yet.


  • SockDev

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    made it look like you opposed @fbmac wanting a WYSIWYG editor?

    i'm opposed to anyone that believes WYSIWYG is anything other than a fallacy. you will never see exactly what you get.

    Discourses WYSIMWYG editor was terrible, NodeBB somwhat better but not perfect, Xenforo's is better still, but still not perfect.

    hell even Microsoft Word can't show you exactly what will come out of the printer because of the vagaries of printers and their postscript implementations.

    we want a good editor yes, but we should recognize and accept that we cannot get a WYSIWYG editor, because they don't exist.



  • @accalia Oh so it was some kind of weird pedantic dickweedery?

    That's actually even worse.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in Xenforo:

    accalia Oh so it was some kind of weird pedantic dickweedery?

    you claim WYSIWYG is possible?

    Show me then.

    show me something that is WYSIWYG and is perfect without bugs.

    i wait with bated breath for you to produce that unicorn.



  • @accalia I cannot compete with your pedantic dickweedery, because no matter what I'd type, you'd reply with something asinine like "NUH UH! The screen is 96 DPI and the laser printer is 600 DPI so you don't get the exact same result!!!" Which is technically true, but only the most pedantic of dickweeds would care.

    Since I can't answer your dumb-ass question, I concede defeat. You're idiotic pedantic dickweedery stands.



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    NodeBB somwhat better but not perfect

    I'm not seeing any editor or even a preview. Maybe that's because I use it on mobile.


  • area_deu

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    made it look like you opposed @fbmac wanting a WYSIWYG editor?

    i'm opposed to anyone that believes WYSIWYG is anything other than a fallacy. you will never see exactly what you get.

    Discourses WYSIMWYG editor was terrible, NodeBB somwhat better but not perfect, Xenforo's is better still, but still not perfect.

    hell even Microsoft Word can't show you exactly what will come out of the printer because of the vagaries of printers and their postscript implementations.

    we want a good editor yes, but we should recognize and accept that we cannot get a WYSIWYG editor, because they don't exist.

    Your point is?

    Discourse's preview was wrong most of the time and nodebb's has issues, too.

    Plus, markdown is stupid.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in Xenforo:

    You're idiotic pedantic

    @blakeyrat said in Xenforo:

    You're

    you did that on purpose.

    also, really, you're not even going to make the attempt to defend your apparent position that WYSIWYG is possible?

    whatever, man.


  • SockDev

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    Discourse's preview was wrong most of the time and nodebb's has issues, too.

    as does Xenforo's as you would learn if we migrated to it as @fbmac asked for.

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    Plus, markdown is stupid.

    It serves a purpose. It also suffers from the same "shiny shiny" and "everyone else is doing it" problems that MVC suffers. People use it to solve something it wasn't designed to and wonder why it sucks.

    Markdown was intended to take simple textual documents and turn them into halfway decent markup, so that someone could write meeting notes in a text editor with a few markup characters thrown here and there, and then throw it through a parser to spit out markup to post on a blog.

    Markdown works great for that, and that's about it. and it only really works great for that if you're willing to adopt the idiosyncratic style of the sole author of markdown


  • area_deu

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    to post on a blog.

    Is a forum a blog?


  • SockDev

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    to post on a blog.

    Is a forum a blog?

    Apparently, yes.

    a blog with thousands of topics and hundreds of authors posting blog posts at a phenomenal rate. we're sure to have VC soon so we can quit our day jobs and move to writing these blog posts full time! isn't that amazing?



  • @accalia thats not his or anyone point.

    it doesn't matter if wysiwyg isn't pixel perfect it's better than writing bbcode on my phone


  • SockDev

    @fbmac said in Xenforo:

    it doesn't matter if wysiwyg isn't pixel perfect it's better than writing bbcode on my phone

    Markdown is better than writing bbcode on your phone.

    no, seriously, it is.



  • @accalia Prove it. With evidence. Not ass-pulls.

    As far as I know, the usability of Markdown (on a phone or PC) compared to the alternatives has never been studied. Since you apparently know otherwise, sock it to us.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said in Xenforo:

    @accalia Prove it. With evidence. Not ass-pulls.

    soon as you rise to my challenge of 25 minutes ago, or at least make a good faith attempt to do so.

    I called you out to prove your point of view and you effectively said "fuckit" I'm not going to spend my effort on backing up my statements when you will not spend the effort on yours.


  • mod

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    @fbmac yeah, there's no such thing.

    there is only WYSIMWYG

    You might have one that's very good, but you'll never have one that's exactly WYSIWYG

    WYSIWYG is a fantasy, a myth, an urban legend.

    Go check out CKEditor. Works beautifully.



  • @blakeyrat typing brackets require more touches than asterisks, they annoy me more

    but I just dont format stuff, too much work even in markdown



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    I called you out to prove your point of view

    No you didn't. You produced a "challenge" that nobody could possibly win. Because if even a single ink molecule is out of place, bam, it's not WYSIWYG GUYZZZ!


  • SockDev

    @abarker said in Xenforo:

    Works beautifully.

    agreed, but it's still not WYSIWYG. too easy to get it to generate something that ends up looking subtly (or not so subtly) different when you save.

    Usually due to differences in widths between the editor and the content. that sort of thing is a bugger for editors to get right.

    second most common is for some style rule to be in place on the site that matches the editor but not the content or visa versa.

    seen both happen too many times to call CKEditor WYSIWYG.

    it's fucking close though.



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    agreed, but it's still not WYSIWYG

    It's WYSIWYG for people who aren't being needlessly pedantic about it.


  • mod

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    but it's still not WYSIWYG.

    :wtf:

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    Usually due to differences in widths between the editor and the content.

    "Ohs noes, the site designer failed to make the editor and the final display the same width, so the lines wrap differently. Therefore, this editor is not WYSIWYG."

    :rolleyes:

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    Usually due to differences in widths between the editor and the content. that sort of thing is a bugger for editors to get right.

    second most common is for some style rule to be in place on the site that matches the editor but not the content or visa versa.

    These are both issues that are the fault of the site designer, not the editor. They do not diminish the fact that CKEditor is WYSIWYG when utilized by a competent site developer.


  • SockDev

    @abarker said in Xenforo:

    They do not diminish the fact that CKEditor is WYSIWYG when utilized by a competent site developer.

    given that for a period of about two years they had a bug where <a><div href="foobar">text</div></a> as text input would be saved as <a href="foobar"><div>text</div></a> i'm still not willing to call it WYSIWYG. (i was actually rather surprised when they fixed it. pleasantly so, obviously, but still surprised. You don't often see bugs that old actually get fixed without the product going through a complete rewrite)

    CKEditor is fantastic, absolutely

    but am i willing to call it WYSIWYG? nope. I'll happily call it the closest i've ever seen in a webbrowser, but i'm not willing to call it there yet.


  • mod

    @accalia You are overly pedantic in your definition of WYSIWYG.


  • SockDev

    @abarker said in Xenforo:

    @accalia You are overly pedantic in your definition of WYSIWYG.

    it's in the name.

    "What you see is what you get"

    if you don't see what you get it's not WYSIWYG


  • SockDev

    @abarker Pendantry? Here? No way!



  • @loopback0 said in Xenforo:

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    agreed, but it's still not WYSIWYG

    It's WYSIWYG for people who aren't being needlessly pedantic about it.

    That sounds like it's not the thing for us.



  • Is href even valid on a <div>?


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 No, but I think that's kinda her point


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in Xenforo:

    Is href even valid on a <div>?

    according to w3c? .... i'm not actually sure... it's either "absolutely not" or "sure, but it has no semantic value"

    i think it falls into the former case for XHMTL but the latter for HTML4/5 (much like the data-* attributes)

    could be wrong and don't have the sanity left in me to try to parse the w3c spec right now to find out for sure.



  • @RaceProUK said in Xenforo:

    No

    @accalia said in Xenforo:

    it's either "absolutely not" or "sure, but it has no semantic value"

    So if a user enters invalid HTML into a WYSIWYG editor and that adjusts it to the closest valid representation, that suddenly makes the editor in question not WYSIWYG.
    "Oh you saw something that was supposed to behave like a link but didn't work and we gave you a working link instead".
    This is definitely needless pedantry, especially considering that particular behaviour doesn't exist any more.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in Xenforo:

    So if a user enters invalid HTML into a WYSIWYG editor

    AS TEXT

    as in literally typing that into the editor in WYSIWYG mode.

    i'd be okay with it if the user flipped into "edit raw" mode, but it's a bit much if they're in WYSIWYG mode


  • SockDev

    @accalia Ah, that makes more sense



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    AS TEXT

    Oh, well that wasn't clear.
    Fine. Still though - a bug in a WYSIWYG editor doesn't make it not a WYSIWYG editor. It's a bug.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @abarker said in Xenforo:

    Eeewww …
    Just keep it off me.

    :giggity:



  • @accalia said in Xenforo:

    Discourses WYSIMWYG editor was terrible, NodeBB somwhat better but not perfect

    Live preview != WYSIWYG.

    I personally do prefer live preview in a web environment. And I think the major differences between preview and post on nodebb are CSS-based, not HTML-based?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @aliceif said in Xenforo:

    Plus, markdown is stupid.

    That's one of the plus sides of markdown, yes. I'd rather have stupid than excessively clever.



  • @dkf said in Xenforo:

    I'd rather have stupid than excessively clever.

    In the case of markdown, I would have settled for something closer to the middle ground. Now we've got something excessively unclever.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.