or would it be better (if possible) to limit the number of lines the sig can use?
Number of lines is a completely subjective perception, based on whether you have the forum at full or fixed width, how wide your browser window is, etc. So no, I can't do that, Dave.
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
The problem is I don't have much leeway in parsing these BBCode tags. Also, security reasons.
Also, is there any way to specify a start-time in embedded videos? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't.
[yt]g5wFS6Gnkk4&t=1m21s[/yt]
This just in!
[yt time=###]{VIDEO_ID}[/yt]The 'time' parameter is optional of course, but when specified, it must be digits only, representing the number of seconds from the start of the video. You can find this out easily by right-clicking on a video and selecting "Copy video URL at current time", pasting what it copied somewhere, then looking at the value for 't=###' at the end of the copied string.
Or, you know, just calculate the seconds from the minutes and seconds in the player.
Say, how about Twitter embedding? Easy or hard? Worth the effort?
Should be possible, but I personally don't see a need for it. However I am willing to let the majority rule in this case, so if you want to create a poll thread about it, go for it.
It's nice that images within img tags are scaled to screen, but why is it that you can't click on the image to open it in original size? Thankfully Chrome has option to open an image in new tab when you right-click on one.
Yeah, thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to implement something to address this, but forgot.
There's a technical restriction, though. I can't simply add a link only to scaled-down images. I can do it globally, to all images, but it might be a bit unexpected if someone posts an image that isn't large enough to be scaled down, and you click on it and it shows the same image at the same size. Not sure if that's undesirable or unexpected.
Regarding implementation, one method (let's call it option A) would be to implement
a "lightbox" type popup. Another (B) would be a simple link that opens the image directly in a new tab, without any fanfare. A third (C), which might be most confusing considering the technical limitation I mentioned above, would be to prevent images from being scaled down at all
if they have browser focus (i.e. if they've been clicked on). Once you click elsewhere, the image would return to being scaled-down as necessary.
Personally, considering the purposes people post images around here (showing off latest models, renders, screenshots, etc), and considering the growing use of mobile browsing, I think that option B would be best. It would allow each user's browser to handle the large image natively (good for mobile), and would not restrict things to the entire browser window like option A's lightboxes tend to do (they're best used for small thumbnails).
Wait, what? Does that mean that the contents of [url ] [/url ] tags are sanitised somehow?
Both [u
rl]...[/ur
l] and [u
rl=...]...[/ur
l] tags have basic sanitization and validation, including adding http:// to the beginning if it's missing, stripping out certain strings and chars, etc. Also, what Goob said about merely linking vs. embedding.
