|
ednrgc wrote: I think the problem is only with beginner posters
but most of the fast/simple (and sometimes stupid) questions are from beginners, so let's keep the CSS up 
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: but most of the fast/simple (and sometimes stupid)
Those are usually mine 
|
|
|
|
|
ednrgc wrote: Those are usually mine
lol. i don't care, as long as you use <pre> 
|
|
|
|
|
I have a suggestion that its better that we separation(of course Chris) insert a editbox for insert code like signature of each member when someone enter code on this section it automatics insert two tags pre and code to his code
|
|
|
|
|
i don't like this, because we can have the need of posting several blocs of code sometimes...
|
|
|
|
|
I've no idea how much work it would be - server side - to identify <code> elements with embedded newlines and convert them to <pre> blocks, but it would probably be the most foolproof method of handling this.
But failing that, i think it'd be a fine idea to ditch the <code> button entirely, and label the <pre> button code. I don't think too many people use the <code> tag correctly anyway (except for myself... and i make my own buttons).
|
|
|
|
|
i was as strict as "ditching" the <code> button, but why not, if that permits posts to have a better formatting...
Shog9 wrote: it would probably be the most foolproof method of handling this.
it could in at the same time transform the < into < and etc into ode samples; but there's certainly too much work there.
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: it could in at the same time transform the < into <
...and insert a space on blank lines That one killed me until I finally asked.
|
|
|
|
|
When we mark a message as spam or abusive, it also is voted 1. It is shown after clicking. My suggestion is that the same could be shown in the tool tip too, like "Mark this as spam (and vote 1)".
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
With respect to the site upgrade:
At times it can desireable to add a second or third page to an article so that the Article does not become cluttered. The additional pages could be used to expand on points in the main article, but does not neccessarily constitute another article. (I realize this is not required for a lot of articles - such as the screen shot articles with a note 'download to see the source').
Would it be possible to add additional pages to an article, much like ones adds GIFs, PNGs, and ZIP files?
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, please no. I hate paged articles - my page up / page down keys never work properly to navigate them.
Of course, if a large article can be split neatly into smaller articles, that's just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would be a better solution to have the article contain
- download links
- introduction
- table of contents
- message board
Each link in the table of contents then would navigate to the appropriate section in the article content file, which contains the download links, introduction and content. That would also make the message board on large articles better visible.
Maybe a server-side script could do this automatically for articles that are at least X non-whitespace content characters (don't count HTML tags and attributes) long?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Shog,
Definetly not a paged article - just an area to discuss other pertinent topics. It can be skipped by the reader.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Some people like paged articles - it gives more ad impression space, and also improves downloads for larger articles (although not many articles are that large).
Just as long as it also has a link to get the entire article in a single HTML document, like the "printable" link does.
I think that a "screenshots" and a "downloads" area might be good as well, but only as add-ons to an article. I.e. they should not replace images or links within the article itself, only collect all of them onto a single page (or tab, if you want to get fancy .
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
|
I was very surprised and disturbed to find out that CodeProject allows article submitters to place a license on their articles. I had thought it was a given that any article we submit here is public domain. [Edit: By this I don't mean "Public Domain" I mean free to use however the reader wishes, i.e. unencumbered with a restrictive license]
I request that Codeproject not accept any future articles that are licensed, case in point:
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/IconLib.asp[^]
I see no problem with applications attached to an article being licensed in any form and of course the article's author should retain their copyright and attribution etc, but I see a major problem for CodeProject's future if it allows users to license the article content itself and small samples of code.
If the article is licensed and let's say it is licensed to not be used for commercial purposes, I as a commercial software author should not even read the article (apparently) because I can not even use the *idea* presented in the article in a commercial application.
If this can not be done then I suggest that a system be put in place to tag articles with a license and a filtration system so I can never even see the existance of any article that has a restrictive license of any kind on it in order to prevent possible future legal action.
If that can not be done then you have a serious problem developing on your hands and something better be done about it very promptly.
-- modified at 21:49 Friday 5th January, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
John Cardinal wrote: If the article is licensed and let's say it is licensed to not be used for commercial purposes, I as a commercial software author should not even read the article (apparently) because I can not even use the *idea* presented in the article in a commercial application.
I'm not sure this is 100% correct. But I havn't attended law school, so...
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
A member posted in the lounge advocating that another member (who had their sample application that accompanies their article ripped off and sold for profit) should wait until the company that "stole" their code starts making a lot of money then sue them for damages.
This surely opens up a can of worms that make it less than ideal for fostering the sharing of knowledge here. No commercial company is going to take a chance on anything on CodeProject if it could result in a lawsuit to use it.
No the whole idea of licensing articles stinks and something needs to be done about it very quickly, it's very damaging to CodeProject's reputation and needs to be stopped immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
When code is placed in Public Domain, things change a bit. For example, I know that once placed in Public Domain, one cannot receive a patent for the work. If the patent was held prior, then licensing issues play a larger role.
John Cardinal wrote: This surely opens up a can of worms that make it less than ideal for fostering the sharing of knowledge here.
Yep... I place most of my stuff in Public Domain with no restrictions. A plug for the work would be nice, but I don't expect it. I placed some stuff on Code Project specifically so that others cold not patent it later. (See the Product Keys and Product Activation Articles). Once in public domain, it becomes 'Prior Art', and cannot be patented.
John Cardinal wrote: No the whole idea of licensing articles stinks and something needs to be done about it very quickly
Grass Roots - I have no idea why one would write an article and the expect compensations (royalties, licensing, etc). He or she should not have submitted in the first place. As such, vote '1' for it. In the comments, explain why (such a score deserves an explanation in general). This will deter the future behavior (IMHO - I stress when my rating hovers around 4.5 - I try and do better work than that).
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Walton wrote: As such, vote '1' for it. In the comments, explain why
Well technically as a commercial software developer I should not be reading those articles in teh first place if their idea is "licensed" as non-commercial so just commenting on the article is opening me up to a lawsuit if the poster thinks that I used the idea in my commercial software.
It's just poisonous that the option even exists to place a restrictive license on an article itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
> commercial software developer I should not be reading...
Do not be too hard on yourself. Use common sense - Fair Use. Don't copy and paste the code. The higher level ideas were presented, so use it. The author can't patent or copyright thinking - they can patent the EXE, and copyright the source code.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Walton wrote: they can patent the EXE, and copyright the source code.
Exactly and your missing the point which is that authors *are* in fact attaching a license to the article itself, not only the source code or the executable, see the original example I linked to.
I would have no problem with an author of an article presenting an idea with sample code unlicensed, then attaching a fully working application that uses that code which is licensed. The fully working application is very different from a few samples in a zip file or the text of the article itself.
It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a commercial developer sees an article with a technique they want to use in a commercial application, the article has a no commercial useage license attached to the article itself. The developer has a question and posts it in the message board for that article. There is now a clear link between the company that develops software and the article.
Let's say the developer takes all precautions, completely rewrites the code, but the end result is the same. The article author sees the finished application and the feature that does what they outlined in the article, they feel that their idea was "stolen" for commercial purposes and they sue.
That's what I mean about licensing articles fostering a poisonous atmosphere in which no commercial company can take the risk of even reading the articles at CodeProject.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
John Cardinal wrote: Exactly and your missing the point
AAhh. Yep. M bad.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
In some cases (such as mine), the code is licensed, but not necessairly the idea. In the U.S., the content of the article gets an automatic copyright on it assigned to the author:The U.S. Copyright Office wrote: Under the present copyright law, copyright exists in original works of authorship created and fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly, or indirectly with the aid of a machine or device. In other words, copyright is an incident of creative authorship not dependent on statutory formalities. Thus, registration with the Copyright Office generally is not required, but there are certain advantages that arise from a timely registration.
Actually, this technically applies to the source code as well, as it too is an original work of authorship put to a medium.
Yes, I know that this is US specific, but at least in the U.S. the concerns about copyright are moot - it is there already. Note that providing an explicit license and/or notice of copyright helps when there is no automatic copyright assigment (or if the reader is not aware of it).
Also, licensing the code is not the same as licensing the idea. For example, my code that implements the idea of having a high-throughput SMTP server that uses I/O Completion Ports is licensed, but not the idea itself. If someone wants to write their own SMTP engine using my ideas, let them. The hard work is in the code itself, not the idea.
Lots of people have great ideas - lots of developers think that encryption is a great thing to use to generate registraton keys and prevent theft of a product, but not all of them can implement them. The Sweat Equity (for lack of a better term) present in the actual implementation of the is what is being protected.
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to do with copyright at all, only the licensing of the article content and the posted idea of how to litigously extract the most money from a commercial organization that implements the idea in a non commercial "licensed" article's content which is of concern to me.
James R. Twine wrote: If someone wants to write their own SMTP engine using my ideas, let them. The hard work is in the code itself, not the idea.
Exactly right, but certain authors *are* in fact trying to license the idea by licensing the article content (again, not copyright). Whether it's legal or possible to do that I don't know but it's creating a poisonous atmosphere for coporate developers, who'se bosses are justifieably risk averse and seeing that some part of their commercial application could be based on an idea that came from an article here makes it a good idea to just block and ban CodeProject altogether from the company network.
Putting restrictive licensing on article content on a site meant to foster knowledge is just bad for said site and should be stopped immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: Nothing to do with copyright at all, only the licensing of the article content and the posted idea of how to litigously extract the most money from a commercial organization that implements the idea in a non commercial "licensed" article's content which is of concern to me.
OK - I do not license/restrict my code in order to get money out of others. My license (the JRTS-FSCL) was designed primarly to protect an author's interests and to make sure they get credit for their hard work. As such, I agree that articles should not be traps designed to try to catch the money train.
John Cardinal wrote: Putting restrictive licensing on article content on a site meant to foster knowledge is just bad for said site and should be stopped immediately.
On that, I agree with you 100% - the knowledge gained from, and/or the concepts expressed within an article posted here should be free for use. I do not believe that you should restrict the ideas presented within an article, but on the other hand, I do not feel it is my place to tell people how they should share their ideas.
My points are, and always have been, regarding the actual implementation of them (read: code). It is why developers are hired by companies - to put the company's ideas into code. It is why many of us get paid for, and thus that is where the value (and, IMHO, the danger) is.
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
