[list=1]
[*][url=http://lah.li/forum/viewtopic.php?p=283367#283367][color=#3F5168]Mio[/color][/url] [url=http://littleangelshentai.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=265057#265057]starts to feel more relaxed.
Misaki tries to help her.[/url]
[/list]
As I said, crossing tags or commands is very illogical towards the very nature of programming. Everything has to be clearly defined. This is not a bug, please stop making stuff up.
_________________ Some people say, the universe is a Star Ocean!
Want to donate to keep the site up? PM me for possible donation ways!
We now also accept Bitcoin.
jacxxx: Since to me "url in url ... " looks similar to "spoiler in spoiler in ... "
"Similar"? Similar as in both starting tags beginning with "[" and ending with "]", while being closed by the same tag with a "/" before the tag name? Sure, this is the only similar aspect because it is the phpbb's standard tag syntax. What you're missing is that all similarity ends there, as these 2 tags have completely different functionalities, and as such their specific rules (such as allowed values and nesting) will differ.
Every time you use a bbcode tag, phpbb will apply an html template to it (assuming that the provided input is valid), rendering your text into actual markup that will be functional when a browser receives it.
Nesting spoilers makes sense - they are independent and their toggle functionality works fine inside of another spoiler.
Putting a link inside of a link, in the other hand, makes absolutely no sense and is illegal markup. What do you think a browser would do in such case? (rhetorical question). A link can only point to one single URL, by putting a link inside of a link the browser would most likely attempt to open both links at once, if that wasn't illegal. As the spec doesn't allow that, browsers would fail to render the links correctly and try to recover them the "best" way possible as they saw fit. This erroneous behaviour should never happen though, and as such our backend will never allow "nesting links".
As for nesting repeated styling properties, it is a little more tricky. Even though it'd be valid markup, it is simply not valid phpbb code. The phpbb devs chose it to be this way. That's because there's absolutely no gain for nesting the same property (see Sat's post above - simply close it and open a new one, that is much concise and clear) and providing the ability to nest EVERY tag would be extremely costly in terms of backend processing - and as already mentioned, unnecessary.
If you still remember the thread about spoilers, you will remember that the spoilers nesting ability has been added to the current software by me. That means I've rewrote the spoiler parsing from the ground to allow for that. There are other parsing rules that have been changed/rewritten to improve security and fix some bugs. As you see, we will not edit the parsing rules unless it is to add useful new features/functionalities or fix security issues.
Changing topics, as Sat implied with "please stop making stuff up", he actually means that. You have over 270% of the minimum likeliness to be banned, you should know that already as you alone gave more trouble to the mods than every other user. Could say it is a miracle you're not banned yet - most likely because I've spent a good part of the time that I could be making new features to personally reply many of your questions.
We value users that have been around for so long, and your contributions. I'm also thankful to your speed for finding actual bugs and contacting us (e.g. that time when the new viewtopic table layout was breaking with polls present). However, if you keep attempting on our patience, your account may not last one week more at this rate.
I've attached a graph of current projects development from the LAHWGs I'm in, private projects (non-public projects that haven't been confirmed or announced) are codenamed to a single letter without details for brevity. The detailed ones should be enough to give you an idea of what I'm talking about though. Order of importance is grouped by project name's font size. I've doubled your name's font-size otherwise it wouldn't be readable in the screenshot.
_________________ My main MF acc was suspended, use other mirrors until I re-up it all to a new host.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
Our only limitations are those we set up in our own minds.
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Measuring software productivity by lines of code is like measuring progress on an airplane by how much it weighs.
Programming is an art form, whose real value can only be appreciated by another versed in the same arcane art.
Short explanation for those of you who sometimes use the buttons in edit mode:
A simple user like me never types in cumbersome square bracketed tags like e.g. [c=1]w1 w2 w3[/c] (with c=color) but instead I will type a text, select the part of the text that should get color 1 (the three words w1 w2 w3) and then click the corresponding "Font colour: ...." option in the edit mode. Checking the result in the Preview screen most of the time shows the result as I want it. However, when I give the word w2 color 2 using the same method, Preview doesn't show what I mean. The code generated is quite alright: [c=1]w1 [c=2]w2[/c] w3[/c] unambiguously describes what I want: w2 should have color 2, w1 and w3 color 1. Only programmers seem to think for a moment that w2 should have two colors at the same time, but of course that's not what the simple user, nor the phpBB programmer who built the edit-buttons have in mind. Unfortunately the phpBB programmer who built the Preview etc did a bad job, we must manually adjust the code: [c=1]w1 [c=2]w2[/c] w3[/c] --> [c=1]w1[/c] [c=2]w2[/c] [c=1]w3[/c]. It's not a bug, maybe not even an error, it's just something the user doesn't want.
Exactly the same occurs when using the URL button: [u=1]w1 [u=2]w2[/u] w3[/u] (with u=URL) again describes unambiguously what I want: when you click w2 you should be sent to url 2, clicking w1 or w3 you should be sent to url 1. Again we have to manually add [u=1]w1 [u=2]w2[/u] w3[/u] --> [u=1]w1[/u] [u=2]w2[/u] [u=1]w3[/u].
In my original post I wanted to find&replace a word w2 --> [u=2][c=2]w2[/c][/u] in a long index and discovered in a test-post again the peculiarity that the resulting code is not parsed as it should be. This replacement occurs about 60 times for w2, and there are many more words --> too much to manually adjust it. That's why I asked my simple question again.
_________________ My avatar shows the first encounter of Yuki in the Land of Eternal Snow. Yuki would become my favorite character in the on-going Mystics Saga by arrancar85
Please once again note that this has absolutely nothing to do with bbcode or phpbb. You cannot do this in pure HTML or any other language. Anything between two tags has the capabilities set from the starting to the ending tag. The fact that it sometimes works as you would expect when you incorrectly use them does not change the fact that you are using them incorrectly and will produce varrying results.
Apart from that, you seem to have already expected an answer. I can unfortunately just repeat what was already said. One should not break the rules of a language like that.
Good thing you've found a reply that better satisfies your question.
The problem is most of the bbcode parsing is done through regex, which does not know of recursion nor nesting. This means, to allow for nesting, it'd require either a completely new tokenizer or making more complex regexes and execute each of them multiple times for the wholeness of each post text until no other matches are found, which I've highlighted previously as extremely costly. As you probably noticed, phpBB 3.1.x hasn't been released yet and most likely the devs didn't even think how they will handle it, if they actually still plan to do it.
And I'll repeat one more thing. When you write bbcode, you're simply using a simplified markup language that gets translated into HTML. "a" (anchor) elements, also known as links, must not appear as a descendant of the "a" element per W3C spec. Therefore I'll say it in a more notable tone, you'll NEVER EVER FUCKING EVER nest a link inside of another link depending on my part. Sure thing we could add extra parsing rules to end a link when a nested one starts then resume the initial one after the nested ends, however it is more than obvious that no one in the right mind will spend time and server resources just so lazy bastards can write illegal markup. 'nuff said.
Also thanks Crescent for highlighting that.
_________________ My main MF acc was suspended, use other mirrors until I re-up it all to a new host.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
Our only limitations are those we set up in our own minds.
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Measuring software productivity by lines of code is like measuring progress on an airplane by how much it weighs.
Programming is an art form, whose real value can only be appreciated by another versed in the same arcane art.
You can post new threads in this forum You can reply to threads in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
Do not upload or mention any illegal content. Violators will be reported to the authorities. You are responsible for your uploads and actions.
If it is illegal for you to view adult lolikon material in your current location, leave this site immediately. LAH is in compliance with DMCA.
