• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

This forum thread needs a solution.
Kudos0

a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

When we fill in these posts we are given the opportunity of editing as HTML or NOT editing as HTML.  Please honor our choice.

What am I talking about?

This post I am editing as plain text.  But when I type a " next to a ), it does not show up that way.  It shows up as ").

You have no idea how many people are trying to make a parenthetical statement and up winking at the rest of us.  This goes beyond inconvenient.  It destroys meaning and confuses readers and irritates posters.

My example is but one of many.  It we have chosen to write in plain text, the recoding into html should reflect exactly what we have said; and embedded HTML in terms of fonts and smileys should not impact the rest of the post.

Pretty please ....

Message Edited by mijcar on 05-11-2009 09:29 PM
mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware

Replies

Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

When we fill in these posts we are given the opportunity of editing as HTML or NOT editing as HTML.  Please honor our choice.

What am I talking about?

This post I am editing as plain text.  But when I type a " next to a ), it does not show up that way.  It shows up as ").

You have no idea how many people are trying to make a parenthetical statement and up winking at the rest of us.  This goes beyond inconvenient.  It destroys meaning and confuses readers and irritates posters.

My example is but one of many.  It we have chosen to write in plain text, the recoding into html should reflect exactly what we have said; and embedded HTML in terms of fonts and smileys should not impact the rest of the post.

Pretty please ....

Message Edited by mijcar on 05-11-2009 09:29 PM
mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

I think the Forum should still be in Beta with all the Issues still kicking about - and some have been with us for quite some time!  I wish they would hurry up and Fix them!

Thursday, November 21, 2013: The THREATCON was changed to Level 1: Normal | Tue., Nov. 05, 2013: Zero-Day Vulnerability: Microsoft Security Advisory 2896666 | Saturday, November 09, 2013: Cyber-Criminals Serve Up A Veritable Smorgasbord Of Threats For South Koreans | Wednesday, October 09, 2013: New Internet Explorer Zero-Day Targeted In Attacks Against Korea And Japan [C.V.E.-2013-3897]
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


mijcar wrote:

This post I am editing as plain text.  But when I type a " next to a ), it does not show up that way.  It shows up as ").



I'm not sure what you are seeing here, but when you put the " next to the ), I see a quotation next to a parentheses.

Message Edited by MikeLee on 05-13-2009 07:26 PM
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

HAve you checked your Profile / Preferences -- there's a setting there that relates to smiley's.

Mine is on default and if I type 8:) that's what I see ....

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

Here is a picture of what Huwyngr wrote:

Here is a picture of how it appeared on my screen:

mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


MikeLee wrote:

mijcar wrote:

This post I am editing as plain text.  But when I type a " next to a ), it does not show up that way.  It shows up .  as ").



I'm not sure what you are seeing here, but when you put the " next to the ), I see a quotation next to a parentheses.

Message Edited by MikeLee on 05-13-2009 07:26 PM
Mike, when I posted that, I was shown a smiley.  Now it doesn't appear that way.  But just so you won't think I'm crazy, look at my response to Huwyngr -- I caught his posts with an image catcher so you can see what I see.
mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

mijcar,

I don't work on the Lithium software that drives this forum but I think that you may have a misunderstanding about the purpose of the  Edit  As HTML vs Graphical editor feature.

First, the emoticons aren't a part of HTML at all. If you type a sequence of characters that matches an emoticon, that sequence  will be displayed as an emoticon depending upon the viewer's settings, regardless of your intent. Partly for that reason I have viewing of emoticons enabled so that I can see any conversions that occur to my message without my knowledge. Previewing the messages before posting shows me any emoticons that I may have typed, either intentional or not.

The Edit As HTML feature allows you to directly enter HTML markup. Any HTML that is recognized will be used and the unrecognized HTML appears to be either removed or converted to literal text. Typing <b> in graphical editor mode produces <b> whereas entering it while editing as HTML causes the following text to be bold. Of course, while editing in HTML mode, you could enter &lt;b&gt; and have the literal characters <b> displayed too.

The think the ultimate take away from this discussion is that there should be a way for somebody who's writing a post  to indicate that they aren't typing emoticons or are explicitly going to choose them so that they get rendered as intended. Currently, there is no way for the system to know that when you type :) whether you really want a :) to be displayed or if you wanted the emoticon

Message Edited by reese_anschultz on 05-14-2009 08:32 AM
Reese AnschultzSenior Software Quality Assurance Manager, Symantec Corporation
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

Interesting -- so is it your settings in Preferences or as Reese suggests in your browser?
Hugh
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

In some coding there are what I'll call, probably wrongly, escape codes to tell a system to treat something as literal or not?

I don't know what I'm talking about but I see this in discussions on the coding for the Open Source Off Line Reader I use -- I really must try it out on the NNTP Port here <g> -- where for example / does one thing while // does another like forcing it to accept that it should be a / and not whatever / means in the coding?

And then there is the use of "    " to force literal so I wonder if the system knows that "8:)" is meant to be 8:) and not

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


reese_anschultz wrote:
The think the ultimate take away from this discussion is that there should be a way for somebody who's writing a post  to indicate that they aren't typing emoticons or are explicitly going to choose them so that they get rendered as intended. Currently, there is no way for the system to know that when you type :) whether you really want a :) to be displayed or if you wanted the emoticon

Actually, there is a way.  The menu bar offers smileys for insertion.  If a user selects a smiley from the menu bar, that means its intentional.  On the other hand, if the user writes " ( NIS 2008 ) " he means exactly that, but without the spaces I put in to keep this from being converted to smileys or emoticons.

Most software editors I have seen use a fine balance of common senese.  Even that less-than-paragon of software engineering, AOL, manages to get most of their IMs correct.  An eight at the end of a parenthetical phrase will not produce an emoticon.

mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


huwyngr wrote:

In some coding there are what I'll call, probably wrongly, escape codes to tell a system to treat something as literal or not?

I don't know what I'm talking about but I see this in discussions on the coding for the Open Source Off Line Reader I use -- I really must try it out on the NNTP Port here <g> -- where for example / does one thing while // does another like forcing it to accept that it should be a / and not whatever / means in the coding?

And then there is the use of "    " to force literal so I wonder if the system knows that "8:)" is meant to be 8:) and not


Interesting.

This is a test:

colon right-parens => :)

quote colon right-parens quote =>  ":)"

Nope, once my emoticon viewer is turned on in preferences, both the above will be seen as emoticons.  Which is absurd.  I have programmed for forty years and have never seen a language in which one could not be literal in outcome.Just imagine if we were trying to give a user precise coding to accomplish some low-level task and it involved inputting the symbols: 8rk-(ss-)11"8)tv:)97:(00;).  And none of these symbols are emoticons, but the poor user has his emoticon viewer turned on.  Message Edited by mijcar on 05-14-2009 11:41 AM
mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


mijcar wrote:

Actually, there is a way.  The menu bar offers smileys for insertion.  If a user selects a smiley from the menu bar, that means its intentional.  On the other hand, if the user writes " ( NIS 2008 ) " he means exactly that, but without the spaces I put in to keep this from being converted to smileys or emoticons.


That's exactly the deficit I was referring to. The system could be made to only use emoticons if the user explicitly chooses them from, say, a menu but not if the user types them. Right now it doesn't require that which causes the confusion about user intent. I'm not sure, though, that the system should require a user to manually pick from a menu when people already know, and are used to, the quick and easy way of entering emoticons. This sounds like a good problem for the Lithium designers and engineers to research for future updates.

Message Edited by reese_anschultz on 05-14-2009 10:42 AM
Reese AnschultzSenior Software Quality Assurance Manager, Symantec Corporation
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


reese_anschultz wrote:
That's exactly the deficit I was referring to. The system could be made to only use emoticons if the user explicitly chooses them from, say, a menu but not if the user types them. Right now it doesn't require that which causes the confusion about user intent. I'm not sure, though, that the system should require a user to manually pick from a menu when people already know, and are used to, the quick and easy way of entering emoticons. This sounds like a good problem for the Lithium designers and engineers to research for future updates.
Message Edited by reese_anschultz on 05-14-2009 10:42 AM

It seems that this might transcend Symantec and go right to the core of HTML.  If HTML and XML are going to be serious tools of the business and scientific world, precision must always be paramount.  There must be a way of embedding within either of these languages code that says what follows must be rendered literally; and that code must supercede other code.  At what level would such a discussion take place? And who would be involved?

mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster


mijcar wrote:

It seems that this might transcend Symantec and go right to the core of HTML.  If HTML and XML are going to be serious tools of the business and scientific world, precision must always be paramount.  There must be a way of embedding within either of these languages code that says what follows must be rendered literally; and that code must supercede other code.  At what level would such a discussion take place? And who would be involved?


I think that this really is just a Lithium issue. In HTML, you can force any character to be literally displayed using an &#dddd; where dddd is a sequence of digits representing the code position in the document's character set. XML has similar conventions. Unfortunately, I discovered while trying to use this technique to provide examples in my previous comments that Lithium software looks for emoticons after decoding the sequence. The Lithium software, especially when editting as HTML, already has a markup language which essentially is a subset of the HTML markup. They could extend that language to let you indicate your literal intent or possibly just change the order evaluation. Again, the smileys aren't a part of HTML, it's a layer of processing that Lithium has put on top of the HTML language and it's that implementation that is the root of this problem.

Reese AnschultzSenior Software Quality Assurance Manager, Symantec Corporation
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

Thanks, Reese, for the clarifications, interest, and time you have given this.

I think we are probably at a limit of this discussion, so I am going to mark the thread solved.

mijN360 2013, v.20.1.0.24; Win7 Pro, SP1 (32 bit), IE 9, Firefox 14, No other active securityware
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

What you seem to  be saying is that your browser setting of emoticons ON should not override what you put in the text you are writing that emoticons ON is meant to interpret as an emoticon, which seems to be illogical.

Remedy for you is to turn off the emoticon ON since only you, or anyone with their browser set as you choose to have yours,see this "error" those examples of yours are all literally shown to me.

Message Edited by huwyngr on 05-14-2009 08:13 PMMessage Edited by huwyngr on 05-14-2009 08:37 PM
Hugh
Kudos0

Re: a Modest Request to the Moderator or Webmaster

huwyngr, unfortunately we can't control how you have your settings configured. You are seeing the literals because you have emoticons turned off but if I type a sequence of characters that happens to match an emoticon and you have emoticons on, you won't see what I intended.
Reese AnschultzSenior Software Quality Assurance Manager, Symantec Corporation

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.