How about more than 12 months?

Report · Feb 10, 2009

There is a lot of great technical information in this forum--I refer to it frequently. Only migrating one year of it is not enough, I think. Why can't all of it be migrated?

Cheers!

-- Jim

Report · Feb 18, 2009

Dorothy,

>Stanley, I would hope that most of what users with older software need would be covered in the FAQ folders (that will be retained), or in knowledgebase articles.

Unfortunately, for Photoshop Elements, the FAQs and knowledge-base articles are quite limited in their coverage. It's most unfortunate for users that Adobe only keeps the most recent 12 months of postings.

Report · Feb 18, 2009

If there is stuff in Photoshop Elements that should be converted to FAQ's post a note in those threads calling it to the attention of a host. If there is no host apparent in the forum, feel free to start a topic in the main comments forum and drop links to those threads in it and another of us can grab them and move them into FAQ Folders.

Report · Feb 18, 2009

I think the Elements FAQs should get started all over again, or refer to the Knowledgebase instead. The ones there now are not very thorough.

Report · Feb 18, 2009

That works too... but would be a lot more work then just making sure they don't expire. I'm not up for that much extra.

Report · Feb 19, 2009

>And yes, we can keep everything on the new system (up to 100 gig, I believe).

And how long do you think it will take to reach that limit with the new ability to attach files and embed images?

Peter

Report · Feb 19, 2009

I have to find out if the attachment sizes are taken into account there. They may be stored outside the database on the server with links to them.

Report · Feb 19, 2009

Why would you want to store attachments on Adobe's Servers?

(Yet another good reason to prevent the use of Avatars!)

Pixentral has always served us very well for hosting posted images.

Report · Feb 20, 2009

Over on the ID forums we often wind up wanting to look at actual document files, not just images (which are often irrelevant to the problems we are trying to solve), and Pixentral doesn't support that.

Lots of users have never tried to upload a file to any kind of server before, and being able to attach directly to the forum will be a big help, I think, but it does raise the issue of how much space, where, and for how long, will be dedicated to storing those files. I doubt if 100 gb would last a month. :)

Peter

Report · Feb 20, 2009

probably just blowing hot air but... if you upload an image or a file to adobe's server will it be subject to a copyright thing like "all images and files you upload are property of adobe inc forever and ever"?

...

scary that we even have to think about such things, but that's how things are these days...

Report · Feb 20, 2009

Good question. You do need to give permission for Adobe to display it to other users as long as it is on the system.

Report · Feb 20, 2009

Here are the Terms of User For Adobe.com. Section 8a refers to uploads and forums:

http://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html

Report · Feb 20, 2009

I am not happy about the idea of having my work held on Adobe's servers indefinitely.

Will we still be permitted to post Copyright-embedded images either via Pixentral or by linking to our own Sites if we wish to avoid having our work absorbed into Adobe's Servers?]

Report · Feb 20, 2009

No support for Pixentral would be the ultimate forum catastrophe!

Report · Feb 21, 2009

Some of us upload images/whatever on our own sites. And take them down again if we wish. Can we still do that?

Report · Feb 21, 2009

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

Report · Feb 21, 2009

We should be happy to.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

>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?

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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!

:)

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

what about pixentral's forum format?

instead of: <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0"/><img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1l0nlP7vVUoFXjPwfax3UrZkQKuGwF0_thumb.jpg" border="0"/></a> which displays: <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" />

Report · Feb 23, 2009

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

So the "kids" can post images too!

😉 XD

Report · Feb 23, 2009

Pixentral's URL format _Should_ work. But it looks like they have an extra slash in there that trips up some places and not others.

Here is what I get from Pixentral:

<a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1nCzVVwK9aZd82NmL5iiro2wpIXzC"/><img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1nCzVVwK9aZd82NmL5iiro2wpIXzC_thumb.jpg" border="0"/></a>

That doesn't work in Jive Clearspace.

But if I remove the "/" in the a href section (right after the long string of characters) it then works as expected. Let's see if it works here without the / in it...

John