When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
when you click the cats, it makes an ajax call to send the data and return the new props.
there's also an href="" url for the link to follow. if you follow that code youll get the confirmation page, as it's doing the props using a query string in the url to submit the props and not the asynchronous ajax call:
i think some browsers are failing to follow the rel=nofollow html5 code and navigating through the link. probably should just remove the href, unless you can use it as a backup if the ajax does not return a success.
Like I said, each cat is technically a hyperlink. But there's an attribute to prevent browsers from actually following the link (the original implementation of the props code), and instead it follows some php code, i believe parsing the data out of the query string of the url, and that will update the props without navigating to a new page using ajax.
It seems that for some reason, certain browsers are failing to following the rules of rel="nofollow".
funny, i just gave you props and it opened in a new window. I've never seen that before, and didn't do anything but reload this page since it was still open in the tab from yesterday.
when you click the cats, it makes an ajax call to send the data and return the new props.
there's also an href="" url for the link to follow. if you follow that code youll get the confirmation page, as it's doing the props using a query string in the url to submit the props and not the asynchronous ajax call:
i think some browsers are failing to follow the rel=nofollow html5 code and navigating through the link. probably should just remove the href, unless you can use it as a backup if the ajax does not return a success.
i helped write the props code long ago.
This is what happens when someone with an art degree writes code. It works so well that it only messes with Y8s.
We're updating some software today, so blame Nolan if anything breaks.
As soon as Robb deployed the new code, my cat went deaf, I now have a metallic taste in my mouth, and a large burlap sack filled with ashes and blood, from which "Ave Maria" is faintly audible, showed up on my doorstep.
This is what the message composer looks like now (with hovertext shown for several of the buttons):
On the plus side, Indent appears to be fixed. So thanks for that.
[Also, [noparse] is working again. [B]Nice. [/B]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUWLT02Daoo
(Interesting, it's still being presented as a clickable URL, although I did not use a [URL="https://www.miataturbo.net/tag."] tag.
Let's try this:
White house spokescats still deny that [/URL]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUWLT02Daoo"]the administrator[/ame] of an El Segundo-based automotive forum has had any contact with, or influence over (...)
Wow, that's even more broken than it was before. Looks really freaky in the composition window when I switch out of [source] mode. And I don't know where the hell it's getting [/ame] from...
It should -=> NOT <=- do any parsing when the url is inside a [noparse][/noparse] section.
For instance, let's say I'm writing something, and I want to say something to the effect of "... and you can see more proof of this in Any Of These Three Videos," where each of the five highlighted words is surrounded by a [noparse][/noparse] tag, such that the word is clickable and leads to a youtube video.
In other words, I specifically want the forum to NOT automatically embed the video (which noparse is correctly preventing), but then I also don't want it trying to interpret the url (which it is trying to do, and failing.)
Example:
I have already laid down a noparse, and now I am going to say that you should look at [ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czSr2UD7-Q]This Amazing Cat Video[/ame] before it's too late!
Here's what the sentence above looked like while I was typing it:
Same problem with Twitter links, which have been quite profuse of late in the political press.
Hey @Robb M. , i don't know if you knew this about us, but we really really really really don't like fuzzy pictures.
Like, for real.
AND, it is unlikely that at any time in the foreseeable future, we will begin liking fuzzy pictures.
Like, for real.
If at any point, you or your overlords consider that maybe we are growing out of our huge dislike of fuzzy pictures, it is safe to assume that we aren't/haven't.
1
