Duncanma wrote:

just finished shipping code to Channel 9 that makes me feel dirty... first time in this group I've deployed code that I strongly objected to 12:53 AM January 19, 2008 from web

evildictaitor wrote:

I just read this page and was wondering why Silverlight was broken and most of the pages wouldn't load, and I was about to give up in dispair when I realized I'd disabled Javascript for Firefox last night.

While this means bad kudos on me rather than you, it's pretty shocking how much of this site simply doesn't work when Javascript is gone.

W3bbo wrote:


The C9 guys have stated, repeatedly, in messenger conversations with me, that client scripting is a requirement for visitors since they cannot cost-justify development of a non-scripted version.

evildictaitor wrote:



W3bbo wrote:  The C9 guys have stated, repeatedly, in messenger conversations with me, that client scripting is a requirement for visitors since they cannot cost-justify development of a non-scripted version.

A requirement for the videos and forum editing, maybe, but for getting to a specific page in a multipage thread? No. I like being able to open a page in tabs, and their abuse of __doPostBack breaks it for me.

And the worst part? They already have the mechnism to get rid of it.

Inside a multipage thread (e.g. this one) the code to move the page 2 is javascript:__doPostBack('template$_ctl0$PostThroneView$_ctl0$Pager1$2','').

But from the main forum thread page, it's the non-javascripted:

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=2&PostID=374208#374208

(Note the PageIndex=2).

Now if they can't cost-justify replacing that because of the huge cost of rebuilding the backend, then frankly my view of their competence is somewhat reduced.

W3bbo wrote:


In this incarnation, it's brought about by the monolithic codebase of Community Server and their control library, they're bad at this sort of thing.

It would take too long to replace or redevelop it in a way Microsoft would approve of. So just keep quiet and wait for C9v4 before complaining.

evildictaitor wrote:



W3bbo wrote:  In this incarnation, it's brought about by the monolithic codebase of Community Server and their control library, they're bad at this sort of thing. It would take too long to replace or redevelop it in a way Microsoft would approve of. So just keep quiet and wait for C9v4 before complaining.

Right. That's scheduled here to happen after they invent the pig-jet pack, global cooling hits all of hell and the second, third and fourth coming of Christ.

How long have we been waiting for C9 v4 now? Why can't they just fix this one?

W3bbo wrote:



A while ago, HumanCompiler posed a challenge to me: that if I was able to hack into the C9 servers, Microsoft would take what I had to say seriously (or words to the effect of). (yes, I have the chatlogs to prove it).

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have hatched a plot to root the C9 web farm servers. However I'll need $500, a Skype account, and 8-10 business days.

/seriously
//yarly

CompGuy101 wrote:

[quote user="W3bbo"][quote user="evildictaitor"]W3bbo wrote:In this incarnation, it's brought about by the monolithic codebase of Community Server and their control library, they're bad at this sort of thing.It would take too long to replace or redevelop it in a way Microsoft would approve of. So just keep quiet and wait for C9v4 before complaining.Right. That's scheduled here to happen after they invent the pig-jet pack, global cooling hits all of hell and the second, third and fourth coming of Christ.How long have we been waiting for C9 v4 now? Why can't they just fix this one?[ /quote]A while ago, HumanCompiler posed a challenge to me: that if I was able to hack into the C9 servers, Microsoft would take what I had to say seriously (or words to the effect of). (yes, I have the chatlogs to prove it).Ladies and Gentlemen, I have hatched a plot to root the C9 web farm servers. However I'll need $500, a Skype account, and 8-10 business days./seriously//yarly[ /quote] $500 for what? Perhaps we should donate if you really need the money. Wouldnt you be hacking into orcasweb or whatever instead of microsoft?

irascian wrote:

Shouldn't you guys be discussing this offline?

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

On topic, I'd be wary of hacking into C9, even if the developers said you could.  You have no assurance from OrcsWeb that they wouldn't pursue legal action against you (and I don't know if Erik's word is good enough to protect you, with OrcsWeb being a separate company and all).

W3bbo wrote:

I wonder if this is related.

Some Anti-Silverlight or Anti-Firefox conspiracy doing the rounds?

Duncanma wrote:



W3bbo wrote: I wonder if this is related. Some Anti-Silverlight or Anti-Firefox conspiracy doing the rounds?

Nope, nothing to do with that... the change I shipped out was only on the home page. And due to some CSS styling issues in IE7 it was rolled back at this point.

There is definitely no Anti- anything conspiracy

Duncanma wrote:

There is definitely no Anti- anything conspiracy

evildictaitor wrote:

@ScanIAm:

I know your views on religion, but for someone who self-proclaimedly doesn't care about anyone else's views and wants to keep religion out of C9, I think you ought to change your avatar and caption.

It's inflamatory, and against the C9 terms and conditions.

I'm just asking nicely here before other people start asking less nicely.

Cheers.

Zeus wrote:

From Twitter:

Duncanma wrote: just finished shipping code to Channel 9 that makes me feel dirty... first time in this group I've deployed code that I strongly objected to 12:53 AM January 19, 2008 from web

evildictaitor wrote:

Also with the javascripty nonsense, please fix it. It makes everyone's lives better. What's the point of IE having tabs if channel9 goes and makes a site that deliberately prevents you from using them?

Duncanma wrote:



Zeus wrote: From Twitter: Duncanma wrote: just finished shipping code to Channel 9 that makes me feel dirty... first time in this group I've deployed code that I strongly objected to 12:53 AM January 19, 2008 from web

To explain, and avoid ongoing speculation, I posted some code that checks if the user has Silverlight and *if they don't and they are on a browser that supports Silverlight* then it shows them a modal dialog asking them to go an install it.

 

ScanIAm wrote:


Obviously, my views on religion are incorrect, and now, my personal style is lacking.

ScanIAm wrote:


but if you ever, for one minute, think I give a sh*t about your opinion on my religious views or my avatar, you are sadly mistaken.

Duncanma wrote:


Not sure about the connection with tabs... but we are actually working on making the site work reasonably well without javascript, the new site that is... definitely viewing posts and paging are things that should work without scripting. Doubt we'll get video support without script (Silverlight is 100% useless without script as far as I know), but we should be able to make it a 'click to play' style experience.

evildictaitor wrote:


My point about tabs is that you can't right click a javascript link and "Open in New Tab", since this functionality is designed for opening new pages, whereas javascript is designed for modifying the current page.

Duncanma wrote:

Ah, ok... well if we set the href correctly to the non-javascript method, and put the javascript method into the onclick then this problem should be fixed for you. I'll keep this in mind as we are coding.

Duncanma wrote:


Ah, ok... well if we set the href correctly to the non-javascript method, and put the javascript method into the onclick then this problem should be fixed for you. I'll keep this in mind as we are coding.

W3bbo wrote:



Duncanma wrote: Ah, ok... well if we set the href correctly to the non-javascript method, and put the javascript method into the onclick then this problem should be fixed for you. I'll keep this in mind as we are coding.

Middle-clicking still fires the onclick event, IIRC.

evildictaitor wrote:



Duncanma wrote:  Ah, ok... well if we set the href correctly to the non-javascript method, and put the javascript method into the onclick then this problem should be fixed for you. I'll keep this in mind as we are coding.

Sounds good, but why do you need to keep the onclick event? The purpose of clicking '2' in a multipage thread is to move the second page, and that's what the javascript method does. By replacing it with the non-javascript method, it does so without invoking javascript, and has the happy side-effect that middle-click works, spiders can follow it, and javascript-disabled browsers can use C9.

Duncanma wrote:


Because we want it to work without a full page refresh... you might not agree, and I understand that, but we are currently set on our ajax-style paging.

evildictaitor wrote:


Make the link a normal link, but add an onclick event. In the onclick event test if the left mouse button was clicked. If so, fire the ajax request and cancel the event bubble from moving the location elsewhere. If any button other than the left button was pressed, do nothing.

This means that a left click ajax-gets the page, and a middle and right click does the default, i.e. brings up the "Right click-link" menu, or open in a new tab respectively.

Duncanma wrote:

To explain, and avoid ongoing speculation, I posted some code that checks if the user has Silverlight and *if they don't and they are on a browser that supports Silverlight* then it shows them a modal dialog asking them to go an install it. 

Duncanma wrote:



evildictaitor wrote:  Make the link a normal link, but add an onclick event. In the onclick event test if the left mouse button was clicked. If so, fire the ajax request and cancel the event bubble from moving the location elsewhere. If any button other than the left button was pressed, do nothing. This means that a left click ajax-gets the page, and a middle and right click does the default, i.e. brings up the "Right click-link" menu, or open in a new tab respectively.

Thanks! That is an interesting approach... I'll see what I can do.

As far as the existing C9, I'll take a look at the code for the pager and see what is possible. As other people have mentioned, there isn't really any need to have paging done via javascript since it ends up being a full page load anyways.

I'm the only guy on the team who does any work with the current C9 code base though, so I'm the bottleneck for any changes to this site.

Oh, and just so no one thinks I've stopped responding out of lack of interest, I'm heading out to the grocery store with my daughter ... so I won't be participating in this thread for at least the next few hours and possibly won't get back to it until later in the evening.

Duncanma wrote:

... now we are moving onto to the Sandbox (support for uploading files, user tagging, etc...)

RichardRudek wrote:

And deleting ?

Or are we going to allow (some) attachments on forum posts ?

Duncanma wrote:



RichardRudek wrote: And deleting ? Or are we going to allow (some) attachments on forum posts ?

Deleting? By the author of the sandbox entry?

Duncanma wrote:

Not actually something we had talked about, we discussed the ability to upload a new version that would replace the one currently there (although we'd keep tracking the combined download count along with the individual download count for each uploaded version over time)... but no, other than an administrative action, we hadn't planned on delete.

Perhaps if you explain your question in more detail I'll have an idea of why we would do that.... and we can always change our minds

Duncanma wrote:

Now, as far as attachments to a forum post, that is somewhat problematic. In the sandbox we'd have the author go through a little bit of legalese before uploading, and we'd warn people before downloading those same files. If we allowed attachments in any forum we might need to extend those same rules to more places. Including links is, of course, possible... and we'll be adding support for inserting images... I guess file support would allow for sharing smaller amounts of code/snippets/etc... once again, more details on what you had in mind would help us to understand the scenario for attachments to any forum post.