|
Chris,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. It looks like we are getting a well-balanced approach to related problems.
Now, as to your suggestion on adding appropriate text "in the game itself", I already made very similar steps and plan to complete my modifications shortly. Essentially, the only difference between having the license permission note in the zipped source files in the article and "in the game" is the access to this information when the game is published as a separate Web page. I think putting the license and copyright links to my short help block would be quite enough as it is close to the common practice putting it on the Help -> About box and would be well expected by those who are interested in this information.
When this is ready, I'll update the article and the zip.
As to your suggestion to have a live game on the page of the article, I don't mind, it's a good idea, and it can really add intrigue to the article. 
I also don't mind if I won't have access to these files (safety first, as I understand it), but in the case I decide to improve the game, we would need to communicate to sync the life copy with the zipped copy. What it takes is really making a copy: the source files (after my changes) need just to be unpacked somewhere, as is, so main HTML file "index.html" can be referenced by an anchor in the article HTML. That's all.
After I'll complete the changes, I'll notify you again. If we continue with the "life copy" of the game on this site, please tell me my further steps.
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 19-Feb-15 2:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: but in the case I decide to improve the game, we would need to communicate to sync the life copy with the zipped copy
Sean is always on standby and can get updates made quickly.
We'd love to have a live version!
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Great. Give me a bit of time. I'll reply when I'm ready.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Thank you for your effort. There are some issues, I fixed some (capitalization, TOC and section anchors), but screwed up the iframe itself. On update, it keeps escaping HTML markup. I already faced this problem before, did not have time to clearly reproduce to report it. Besides, if you paste full HTML in the article edit control, the problem did not appear.
At this moment, I have no time to continue, so I put "under construction" words for now. Sorry.
Now (sight…) I was afraid you would do something like this. Unfortunately, there is some frustration. Putting the game in the iframe makes it not fully functional (I did not test everything, did not test help). But this is not the point. The point is real user experience. To me, the game does not look quite playable. My main point was to resize the game on page resize, which is a delicate thing. Even on my laptop, not too small at all, the game is too big to fit. On my big monitors, it should be fine. I tell you: on very many computers, the life preview won't be playable.
As a temporary measure, I tried to make it twice as small. I renamed to section to "Live Preview" and was about to add text to it. But I'm not even sure that it will be acceptable.
I understand if you wanted to always keep the game in the background showing all CodeProject environment. But it cannot prevent others from playing the game on a separate page, even if they copy all the code (this time, it would not violate the license, so nothing can stop them). Here are the options we have:
1) Remove life preview at all; this is still a viable option which was there in first place.
2) Leave it as is, but reduce the size and add some notes on resizing.
3) Create the edition of the game in a fully-functional way: resizeable; In this case, it should be on a separate page, but in a special edition showing CodeProject environment you define. It would need more effort.
4) Just publish it on a separate page as is; but I will understand if you consider it not acceptable.
5) Something between 3 and 4; having very limited CodeProject design features and requisites, with back link to article immediately on the game page.
What do you think?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: On update, it keeps escaping HTML markup
This is precisely why I said we'd have to do updates after we made the code go live.
I set the width of the frame to be 700px but I could easily just set it as 100% and so when users are in fluid view and they resize then they'd see the canvas resize as the iframe resized.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Chris.
All right, please hold on, I'm thinking of something to improve the life play. But to restore what you already did, please tell me that URL (something "~/.../KB.../index.html")? — I accidentally lost it, sorry.
Also, could it be done directory-like (through default/index file of directory), to avoid showing "index.html" part?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Try it now. (Ensure you try it in fluid layout, too: Tetris on Canvas[^])
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Now it shows: "403 - Forbidden: Access is denied". Something's wrong with the URL.
And, after I tried to reproduce it — empty content...
Wait a minute, I found a bit more elegant solution with resize. You wrap iframe in resizeable div with certain style. I just need to figure out good initial size and sort out some problem with scroll bars. Still a bit limited show, but already much better... Then we can get back and restore the live play...
—SA
Sergey A Kryukov
modified 20-Feb-15 17:07pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey: You can't edit it yourself. You simply do not have the permissions necessary to include script and iFrames.
Please let us do the editing 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, iframes, too? I see...
Please see my other message entitled "New HTML markup for iframe, cannot submit it" where I copied somewhat improved iframe markup. But iframe src URL doesn't work. Please put it together, will you?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Please see what I got:
<div style="resize:both; width: 635px; height:525px; margin: 0; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; border:0; frameborder: 0; "><iframe src="/kb/game/876475/" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; border:0; frameborder: 0; width:100%; height:100%;"></iframe></div>
Can you see the idea? Resizeable div wraps 100%-sized iframe. Still, it's not perfect; I cannot resize to smaller size without showing a scroll bar; and Chrome does not show the resize grip. Still, it looks better.
Unfortunately, I cannot enter this markup to the article anymore; on submission, the HTML characters got automatically escaped. Could you fix it? And remember, src URL does not work anymore, also should be fixed.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Oh, now it works. Much better. I think we can leave it as it is right now, at least until I have something to improve in the game itself.
Thank you very much for all your help and enthusiasm about this thing.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent.
Be sure to go through us for all updates. We're doing something behind the system's back, and it gets very snappy when we try and be sneaky and tends to delete first and ask questions later if it smells something fishy.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you are talking about, we will do it.
Thank you again.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We're more than happy to post live javascript in your article.
It would probably make sense to host the user-provided code in a sandboxed iframe, and serve it up from a different domain, just in case anything slips through.
Also, if possible, it should run on demand rather than when the page loads.
I know it's a dirty word around here, but StackOverflow's implementation is quite nice:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/09/introducing-runnable-javascript-css-and-html-code-snippets/[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's a slick implementation but I worry that it still opens up security issues. "Run code snippet" is a very inviting button to press, and for the uninitiated it could lead to trouble.
SO's community moderation is extremely tight, though, so damage would be short lived due to the snippet being closed down quickly.
And no, Stackoverflow isn't a dirty word. They just do things different.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping the script in a sandboxed iframe served from a separate domain would at least prevent a malicious script from stealing any cookies, or forging requests to the site from my login.
I know the plan is to have the hamsters vet the script before it makes it onto the site, but they might not catch everything.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, you can simply inspect the code, honestly, very clear and pretty short, and see that it does not do anything except accessing the browser's screen. Not using DirectX is already a big safety measure.
Chris, you told me that I won't have any access to the published resources (I guess, first of all, because there is no such public mechanism), so what's the problem?
Just for a record, that was not me who put forward the idea of having the life game published as well.
Thank you.
—SA
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that your code would be malicious.
My concern is that, if it becomes commonplace to have user-supplied javascript running within an article, there will inevitably be some toerag who manages to slip malicious code past the hamsters. It's better to take steps to limit the potential damage now, rather than after the event.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, I know that. Please see my other comments.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point. The key is the possible scale or severity of the disaster and some sanity. In such a technology as JavaScript, designed for safety if first place (until it was completely spoiled with something like ActiveX component embedding), human-driven moderation can be reliable enough.
But I understand that you probably discuss the possibility of allowing publishing of JavaScript by default, as a potentially massive act performed by any user. Here I would be much more careful and doubtful. Imagine that the destructive attack is found and performed massively and on purpose. Then even the fully reversible and limited damage can present a problem. Don't forget that trivial but massive spamming attack partially paralyzed work for a while, just because real questions were not easy to spot.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like an interesting technique anyway. Thank you for sharing.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Everything goes well. The CodeProject member published the game on the 3rd-party site already removed it on my request; I checked it up. That's good.
I updated both the article and the code; added links to the help box: 1) to my original CodeProject article, 2) to the article on original game, 3) to the license, 4) to the info on contributors, also including, in particular, all of the above links. You may want to review it.
In connection to that, I also added to the article new version of code and 1) version information with explanation of the last version changes, 2) the ideas on future development, 3) TOC, 4) minor fixes.
Now, preparing the life copy is reduced (as a minimum) to just unpacking of the ZIP I uploaded (all 5 files are used), preferably in a separate directory on a server, apparently making the file "index.html" the default/index file of this directory, so the link could be the directory-like. And please tell me this link. That's all: Tetris on Canvas[^].
Will it work based on that?
Thank you very much.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
