[plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

Jeremie · 2005-01-19 04:32:21

I know, this is why I’ve spoken of “objections”. Even if it’s legal to do so without even telling you, it may be simple courtesy (or clever open source project, imo TXP is much better with your work that without it).

It’s like Dean asking not to fork because he would like TXP to function well on Textdrive, or Olivier Meunier asking Free.fr to remove Dotclear (first french blog engine) from their automated install because they lack proper support of PHP, or Rickard asking people not to remove the link and copyright on punBB template, and so on.

It’s not a obligation, it’s just the author saying what he would like (or wouldn’t).

ubernostrum · 2005-01-19 05:22:12

zem: If you switch to XHTML Transitional you’ll validate with target on your links. It’s also possible to use JavaScript to “sneak” attributes past the validator by adding them dynamically if you want to stay with Strict.

Jeremie · 2005-01-19 06:03:17

> ubernostrum wrote:

> zem: If you switch to XHTML Transitional you’ll validate with target on your links. It’s also possible to use JavaScript to “sneak” attributes past the validator by adding them dynamically if you want to stay with Strict.

It’s beyong the scope of the thread, but the w3c validator is not an end in itself.

It mean something. It mean we are all talking in the same language.

And by the way, if target was deprecated in html, it’s for a good reason. Where a link has to open should be, have to be in the hand of the people surfing, not in the hand of the webmaster.

If I want a link to open in a new window, fine. If I want a link to open in a new tab (something the target attribute can’t do by the way), fine. But it’s my choice.

Marek · 2005-01-19 11:10:58

When trying to install the plugin, I get the error message: “
Parse error: parse error, unexpected $ in /tmp/phparafJd on line 5”

ubernostrum · 2005-01-19 11:41:41

Jeremie: There are two separate schools of thought here. One is the accessibility camp which says don’t open new windows and makes some convincing arguments for it.

Then there’s the pragmatist camp, which argues that for some cases a new window is the best solution; for example, when presenting a user with a dialog box which relates to the current page but should not replace it (many e-commerce confirmation dialogs fit this model).

And IIRC target was deprecated in HTML because it’s considered part of the behavior layer, not the content layer, and so is more appropriately handled in the DOM. Or at least that’s the ad-hoc argument that was grafted on to support the choice, and I think it’s a decent one.

Also, it’s still present in the Frameset versions of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0.

Last edited by ubernostrum (2005-01-19 11:42:19)

Jeremie · 2005-01-19 11:53:15

> ubernostrum wrote:

> Then there’s the pragmatist camp, which argues that for some cases a new window is the best solution; for example, when presenting a user with a dialog box which relates to the current page but should not replace it (many e-commerce confirmation dialogs fit this model).

Ecmascript is your tool then, when you really need it. But there are very, very, very few cases.

> And IIRC target was deprecated in HTML because it’s considered part of the behavior layer, not the content layer, and so is more appropriately handled in the DOM.

A more elegant way to say it, yes :)

> Also, it’s still present in the Frameset versions of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0.

You know that frames are instruments of the Evil One, don’t you ? ;->

Andrew · 2005-01-19 17:58:40

Something that might also be a very good idea is to include the ability to have a whitelist of acceptable domains or commenters that wouldn’t get the rel=“nofollow” appended to their links.

Last edited by compooter (2005-01-19 21:28:06)

zem · 2005-01-19 21:19:38

Marek,

If you’re installing via the new textarea copy&paste method, just copy the part of the plugin within the quotes.

bleveck · 2005-01-19 23:57:33

One thing that would be nice is if there was a protocol to tell spammer bots that your site uses rel=“nofollow”. At the moment it seems like this will just help Google’s index more than it will help me out.

Mary · 2005-01-20 00:12:19

Hmm, well you could link to Google’s blog entry near your comment form “your spam won’t work here”, might keep away some of the non-automated spammers.

Andrew · 2005-01-20 00:29:43

Trust me, the cheap-ass software that the spammers are using is not going to be considerate enough to read that text or check anything else on your page. The only motivation they have is to spam as many systems as possible in as little time.

The situation that created comment spam has to do with the fact that getting links — no matter where or how — works to improve your rankings in search engines. Take away that bone, and (so the theory goes) they’ll stop chasing.

zem · 2005-01-20 00:38:03

Incidentally, the nofollow technique is causing quite a stir in the SEO world.

(seochat posters are generally white-hat, but it’s a popular lurking place for black-hat spammer types)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2005-01-19 04:32:21

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#17 2005-01-19 05:22:12

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#18 2005-01-19 06:03:17

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#19 2005-01-19 11:10:58

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#20 2005-01-19 11:41:41

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#21 2005-01-19 11:53:15

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#22 2005-01-19 17:58:40

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#23 2005-01-19 21:19:38

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#24 2005-01-19 23:57:33

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#25 2005-01-20 00:12:19

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#26 2005-01-20 00:29:43

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#27 2005-01-20 00:38:03

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#28 2005-01-20 01:01:33

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#29 2005-01-20 04:25:54

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#30 2005-01-20 04:48:15

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

Board footer