ARGH! (Charles, read this!)

These "rich edit boxes" are KILLING ME!!!

They reject XHTML when I type it in "HTML View" and keep on reprocessing everything!

They cause those "undefined" errors when you post from Firefox still in "HTML view".

And working with the markup in Gecko is impossible, the cursor doesn't represent caret position.

Can you PLEASE offer an alternative means of submitting posts to Channel9?

HTMLArea has none of those problems. It works in Firefox, and produces, even from design view, valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional. It gracefully degrades to a <textarea> on browsers that do not support it. I'm really, really pleased with it. I'm sure there are plenty of other free javascript-based html editors that outdo this crappy one. Please consider changing to a better one.

Beer28 wrote:

Sven, this is unrelated to this topic, but I'm curious, did C9 Alerter linux work on your FC3 with teh start-c9.sh startup script?

It should work right off the bat if you are in the folder with that shell script in it as the cwd.

I've not yet had the chance to test it. This is my parent's PC, so no Linux.

Charles, can you create a post/reply service so we can maybe create Apps to post replies?

-mVPstar

Doh! Forgot about that.

Yeah, but when you want to quote someone and all that.

I know the source-code to the base classes of Channel9's main sections are available, but what of Channel9's own implementation?

Charles: Can we come to an agreement as to releasing the depository of Channel9's active code to at least a select few (such as jamie, Beer, Minh, Me, etc...) for patches and updates?

Remember... the "client/consumer/customer is always right handed!"

I'll make sure Charles sees this!

W3bbo wrote:

Yeah, but when you want to quote someone and all that.

I know the source-code to the base classes of Channel9's main sections are available, but what of Channel9's own implementation?

Charles: Can we come to an agreement as to releasing the depository of Channel9's active code to at least a select few (such as jamie, Beer, Minh, Me, etc...) for patches and updates?

Remember... the "client/consumer/customer is always right handed!"

why a select few, this is a community site

Jaz wrote:

why a select few, this is a community site

Note my use of "at least"

I can understand Channel9 not wanting to release active CVS/SCS access to those we don't exactly "trust". Need I make reference to our incident with "hello_wtf" earlier this year?

How about make it Wiki-based somewhat.  If someone screws around with the code to make it unusable, we can just hit the "restore" button and all is good.

Plus, I'd like to provide a helping hand as well.

mVPstar wrote:

How about make it Wiki-based somewhat.  If someone screws around with the code to make it unusable, we can just hit the "restore" button and all is good.

Plus, I'd like to provide a helping hand as well.

That's what the whole concept of source-control (SCS), CVS, et al. is based on.

I'd have thought you'd have known that

W3bbo wrote:

I can understand Channel9 not wanting to release active CVS/SCS access to those we don't exactly "trust".

Why? Is it insecure? Maybe if it was accessible we could find the bugs.

W3bbo wrote:

That's what the whole concept of source-control (SCS), CVS, et al. is based on.

I'd have thought you'd have known that

/me hits the "edit" button.

Open source Channel9... hmmm... of course some kind of moderation would need to be built in to the check-in system...

Rossj wrote:

Why? Is it insecure? Maybe if it was accessible we could find the bugs.

I mean, untrustworthy individuals might submit patches that introduce security issues. Bear in mind that this is a Microsoft site, and Microsoft has more than its fair share of enemies, the potentials for abuse are there should a system be fully available.

Perhaps granting "read-only" access, and requiring applications and psychoprofiling before granting full-access?

W3bbo wrote:

Rossj wrote:Why? Is it insecure? Maybe if it was accessible we could find the bugs.

I mean, untrustworthy individuals might submit patches that introduce security issues.

Very few Open Source projects have a totally open CVS policy, typically patches go through one or two people who decide what gets added and when.

scobleizer wrote:

I'll make sure Charles sees this!

id like to no about these ideas:
http://www.channel9.ca/test/niners/Profile.htm

http://www.channel9.ca/test/niners/user.htm
(this shows just the center - we could wrap our own custom headers/footers on it - then make them available under sandbox if others like them)


if we could have c9 just as it is - with ability to turn on/off header-footer, upload our own css for the center and get rss for profile and more... then we could literally all make our own customized c9s.. but it would still just be the one site - running in the center


*just to be clear - we would only see our own header/footers - so if im reading a post by loadsgood - it would still be my header footer - as would his c9 have his header-footer

again here is an example of a dynamic header/footer template - no frames - showing astrology feed running within c9 H&F
http://astrology.wiredkingdom.com/index.cgi?refer=http://www.channel9.ca/&tmpl=1c&theme=3d_auburn">http://www.channel9.ca/&tmpl=1c&theme=3d_auburn">http://astrology.wiredkingdom.com/index.cgi?refer=http://www.channel9.ca/&tmpl=1c&theme=3d_auburn

jamie wrote:

..so the URL would look somethnig like:

Current:
http://channel9.msdn.com/User/Profile.aspx?UserID=3010

New:
http://channel9.msdn.com/User/Profile.aspx?UserID=3010&headerID=3010&footerID=3010&cssID=3010

I'd rather the Channel9 server install some kind of content negociation, so it would appear like:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Users/<Username>

Or in true UNIX style:

http://channel9.msdn.com/~<Username>

...As one site I'm currently working on does