|
Hi all,
I know I could be marked as "old" but, sometimes, when I find a very interesting Article (like Sacha Barber's ones), I prefer to print them on paper, so I'll be able to make my notes, mark important paragraphs and so on.
Since last review of this wonderfoul site, when I click on the Printer icon, the printer ready page is displayed, but the column "Sponsored Links" is still in the output, so the room on the left for the Artcle is only 2/3 of the correct one. In this way the formatting of Article itself is truly unpleasant and there is a blank column on the right.
Could it be possible to remove the "Sponsored Links" column from printed pages?
Thanks in advance for your help 
P.S. By the way, I'm still using IE7, because in the Company I work for this is the standard. Unfortunately also using Firefox (latest version on my PC at home) there is the same problem...
the CreF
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies for that. Try it now.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I am getting unexpected newlines inside a PRE block in a programming forum message here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
There are extra spans in your PRE code. Someone (yourself?) mentioned this earlier today so it could be the same issue.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see any spans, not in the forum page, and not in the edit message page.
All I see is what I entered, a PRE block without any internal tags. All it holds are letters, periods, hash signs, and HTML-escaped < and >
Yes I did mention a spurious /SPAN tag that was visible in one of my old Q&A answers (both as a reader and as an editor).
AFAIK that is pretty unrelated: different subsystem, different web page, different editor.
[edit] I didn't put a lang="...", so there is colorization; I never get to see the code that takes, I guess that explains the presence of spans, but they aren't mine. [/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: different subsystem, different web page, different editor
...but same colouriser.
I'm debugging now.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Looks good now. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I just got an email that said:
Deeksha Shenoy has updated your tip/trick "Output a Newline From XSLT":
However, when I look at my tip/trick, I don't see a way to look at revisions like I do on my other tips/tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
Here[^].
I was going to edit the comment that seems to be the culprit but I got much of the page below in the edit box, so I thought I'd leave it alone!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
when you read some of the recent threads here, you can't but conclude something is going wrong in the HTML tags.
Not editing questions seems the wise thing to do at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
We've fixed the issue with the comment editing. Planning on uploading today.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I know it is v v old but it suddenly appeared near the top of the list[^], so I had a look.
The formatting is all to c**k, even after several refreshes.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
Well, just fixed it and came here to post the similar issues found with other few questions. (One was earlier with Luc's answer which he edited and corrected)
Looks like some recent change that has included html tags in the answer arbitly and thus distorting the UI. Chris?
|
|
|
|
|
Sandeep Mewara wrote: Looks like some recent change that has included html tags in the answer arbitly and thus distorting the UI
Looks that way.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe just a new "editor's choice" ploy?
|
|
|
|
|
But that would just be perverse. I like it.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
I posted a variation of this message in response to a post by Nish a little further down in this forum. I'm posting it as its own thread to ensure that Chris sees it.
What I'm curious about is why the people ask questions in Q/A don't ask in the forums instead. Is it because they just click the menu item without waiting to see if it drops down? (That's my own personal guess). In light of that, maybe the Q/A section could be used to replace most of the forums completely:
0) Refactor Q/A to support "answer threads". Each answer will have it's own thread by which the OP and the answerer can continue to communicate.
1) Remove the ability for other users to delete anything from Q/A, and put the current "vote-to-delete system in place" instead.
2) Allow an answer to be *proposed* as "the" answer (by anybody that actually didn't post the answer), and for others to vote that answer as "the" answer. This would allow folks to see answers that may be the best answer if the OP neglects to actually mark one as such. Proposed answers could be oulined and backgrounded in blue (as opposed the green we used for marked answers).
3) Once an answer has been marked as "the answer" by the questioner, no further answers to that thread can be marked as such, but CAN be proposed as "the" answer.
4) Once an answer has been *marked* as the answer, it can no longer be edited, even by the person that posted it.
5) Have the voting system work the same was forums do now, and if an answer or comment is *voted* to be removed, it gets removed.
6) Have answers and comments that have been voted to be removed have a red rectangle outline (or some other obvious indication of it's status).
7) Disallow people from adding "official" tags, but give them the ability to specify "user tags". Question filters would then show questions by their "official" tags, and would allow the user to further filter by "user" tags, such as "gimmecode", or "homework" (or just show them as user tags in the question header block).
I think the Q/A section is more visually appealing than the forums, and should be used to replace the forums, but only after Q/A has been significantly re-engineered. Since it can already be filtered by tag(s), this would keep people from seeing questions about stuff they're not knowledgeable in. It would also make the Q&A drop-down menu pretty much obsolete. Oh yeah, The suggestions/bugs forum would most likely need to find a new home in the main menu.
modified on Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know what you did, but it broke the layout and hid the "quote text" button.
"the Q/A section is more visually appealing than the forums"
is probably the only sentence I agree with, although I don't consider it of major importance.
"should be used to replace the forums"
you want to replace a fine system by that piece of junk, nobody understands how it is supposed to be used, and there is a pretty good reason for that, it does not suit its intended purpose, unless the purpose is: have one or two answers to a simple question, without any discussion. Enforcing a strict structure on a discussion is oxymoronous.
When forums go, so do I.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Don't know what you did, but it broke the layout and hid the "quote text" button.
There's no html in my post, so I don't know what I could have done.
Luc Pattyn wrote: you want to replace a fine system by that piece of junk, nobody understands how it is supposed to be used, and there is a pretty good reason for that, it does not suit its intended purpose, unless the purpose is: have one or two answers to a simple question, without any discussion. Enforcing a strict structure on a discussion is oxymoronous.
I also said it would have to be re-engineered to make it work more like the forums.
Luc Pattyn wrote: oxymoronous
That's not even a word.
EDIT =============
I think it got broke when I edited it. It's certainly nothing I did in my message. BTW, did you notice that my op has all the links off on the right side?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: That's not even a word.
English lacking a word, or my knowledge of it falling short, seldom stops me.
Griff just told me oxymoronic would do.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: it would have to be re-engineered
yes, and more. The "mental model" is too complex. The nice thing about forums is they are extremely simple, no need to think where to post, how to reply, will it cause a notification, and the like. It is all intuitive. Q&A is the opposite.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: all the links off on the right side?
yes.
but no longer, FF and Chr7 both fine now.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
all the links off on the right side?
yes.
but no longer, FF and Chr7 both fine now.
Somehow, the "modified" text that was appended to the message is somehow interfering with my sig (but only in this message). My sig is close to the maximum allowed length, so that might have something to do with it, but I'm kind of at a loss as to why it's only this message.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
the only thing I can think of, and I don't know if it is relevant here, is this:
- when modifying a message (after more than 5 minutes), a "Modified..." sentence is added to the sig, at the very end
- when modifying again (after another period of at least 5 minutes), the "Modified..." string is removed and added again, at another position in the sig, no longer at the end.
For my sig, it means part of my sig text and the closing DIV tag are lost (without any harmful result), for yours it might be different.
I read recently Chris has been playing with new texts ("modified again" and the like), so it could become worse...
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Enforcing a strict structure on a discussion is oxymoronous
I think you mean oxymoronic[^]
I only add this in an attempt to enforce a strict structure on this discussion, you understand.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, that too.
I should have checked, sorry.
And thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
