How about more than 12 months?

Of course, that's why Carlo Eugster also provides "Forum" (a\k\a markup) code.

So the "kids" can post images too!

;) XD

what about pixentral's forum format? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />instead of: <br /> <br />&lt;a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0"/&gt;&lt;img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0_thumb.jpg" border="0"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt; <br /> <br />which displays: <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0_thumb.jpg" border="0" />

I (and quite a few other people I know of) steer clear of Flickr (and Facebook, and Yahoo and Freecycle) because of their invasive sign-up requirements.

That's what makes sites like Pixentral valuable.

And it seems to me that I recall there are other ways to strongly thwart XSS exploits (of course we all know that the cat-and-mouse game is neverending, and its likely nothing will ever be completely exploit-proof).

Please suggest to your geekier members of the web team that they research methods for mitigating XSS server-side, so that the baby of user-friendliness isn't being thrown out with the security measures bathwater.

One of the tags most often banned to help prevent cross-site scripting troubles is the A tag. This happens to be the same tag that Pixentral uses for its HTML link.

If you remember the cross-site scripting hacks that popped up her last January you may recall that we temporarily had to turn off the A tag, and that broke the Pixentral links.

That said, so far I have been able to get a link to a Flickr image to work with an A tag. The same tag/syntax for Pixentral is displaying as text. I will keep looking into it.

dammit.

I HATE not being able to use the HTML code I made the effort to learn. Proprietary markup, or clicking buttons on a formatting bar is often a bit of a PITA. Not to mention it feels a bit patronizing and "dumbed down" in what should be one of the premier professional forums on the W3.

As I've said in the pastboth here and on other forums where admins were having trouble with folks who "misused" HTML:

In some (many?) modern forum apps, the admins have the option of specifying a list of standard HTML tags which are allowed to be used and which will execute as HTML is supposed to. All that has to be done is to enter as a comma-delimited string of "allowed" HTML tages, i.e.:

a,abbr,acronym,area,b,big,blockquote,br,caption,center...sub,sup,tt,u,ul

Any tags that are not in the list will display as plain text, and will not execute as HTML. This set of HTML tags can be used in conjunction with proprietary mark-up, the latter of which can be used for the purposes of allowing users to embed YouTube or QuickTime content, for example, without also enabling more "disruptive" code execution to make it through to the posted content.

It's a good way of allowing those folks who prefer to use HTML to use it, and to make things a bit easier on those who would like to format their replies, but who don't know HTML.

Best of both worlds, and probably WAY too much to expect.

Please...I'd love to be surprised and proved wrong on what we'll be seeing in the new forums!

:)

Most HTML will just display as text, not be interpretted. But there is an option to insert raw HTML, and I think it might work there. So far I have been able to get a Flickr image to work correctly. Still working on the Pixentral one.

>But I'm not sure how the Pixentral thubnail/preview might work.

there are 2 types of code there. html and "forum". how well supported (if at all) will regular html be?

I am checking on that. YOu should be able to host an image anywhere. But I'm not sure how the Pixentral thubnail/preview might work.

We should be happy to.

Would you all be willing to accept a simple "Of course"?