|
If in source view and you try and insert an image(by clicking the arrow on the file list on the left) it sort of breaks things and takes you off to some other page. 
Caught me out a couple of times.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Dave. I'll give it a talking to.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have an example? I'm working on it now and I'm having trouble replicating the issue.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I have just emailed you an animated gif recording demonstrating the problem.
I get is consistently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seem to be fixed now.
Pierre
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't we have the repository to store the ebooks (free) so that it will be very useful for the members to download and use them?
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect because it would get misused.
Unless you are the author / publisher of the ebook, it's pretty difficult to know absolutely that the person posting it has all the copyright and suchlike permissions required to distribute it, let alone give it away.
And let's face it: most of the ebooks available on the internet are pirate copies at best!
This is not a piracy site: just look at how hard we work to prevent plagiarism in the moderated areas. Adding a forum that is likely to be abused almost immediately, and the validation / moderation that would be required? I can't see the Hamsters going for it...
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
We're not a repository of other's eBooks - we're a site where members can share source code and tips.
If an author wished to post their eBook as an article (or multipart article) then great!
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just noticed this today, it is doing my nut in also.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for you, but I'm glad it's not just me! 
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Unfortunately, I can't find any "view source" option in Outlook 2010, so that's all I can do at the moment...
If you use the reading pane, then simply right click and view source on the message view.
If you open the message, just do the same thing, right click and view source.
src="//dj9okeyxktdvd.cloudfront.net/script/Forums/Images/smiley_doh.gif" was another target.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using Outlook 2010 as well and am having no problems whatsoever.
[Edit: OK, yes I am. Which is a Good Thing. I'll fix]
Where's my "It works on my machine" icon when I need it?
My guess is that using agnostic URLs (eg // instead of http://) is the issue. I'll dig in this morning.
cheers
Chris Maunder
modified 22-Aug-14 9:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
(Thanks to Dave) I can see the messages with no problem in a Reading Pane, but trying to open the
Nope, the reading pane has the same problem with some forum messages - but not all, it would appear... 
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
I found the issue. It's kinda amusing. Except it's really not.
The links to images in the emails are of the form //domain.com/file.ext. Thie is a URL form that says "get the HTTP or HTTPS version of the file depending on the protocol of the current request". Outlook, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that what it really, truly means is "\\domain.com\file.ext". Meaning when it tries to load the email it is looking for a computer on your network called domain.com. And, given that loading an image from a network location is obviously best done in a manner that blocks the UI thread, the entire Outlook app locks up while it hunts around for \\domain.com.
I've fixed, and will deploy soon.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Guess who just double clicked on the notification for your message?
I guess MS quality control doesn't include "is this a good idea?" checking...
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was still an issue. I've just deployed the latest fix that should solve the "issue".
Now if only the outlook team would fix their bug.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: if only the outlook team would fix their bug.
I do like a man with a sense of humour! 
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
MY fault is that I'm often overly optimistic.
(But the issue's now officially fixed.)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
There is a textbox in the Unsubscribe page between the "Update my subscription" and Orange footer (in the blank white space). It may not be visible, but if you select the whole page (ctrl+A) then the textbox can be seen.
The text box can be very confusing as, people might fill it but it does not do anything.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been writing all my new articles and blog posts in Markdown recently, and I have noticed an error in the way codeproject renders the HTML from markdown.
Any code block in markdown is rendered with a <code> element INSIDE a <pre> element, usually with attributes like <code lang="csharp"> or something. I have tried three different Markdown-to-HTML converters, each with slightly different output, but all of them do this. The problem is that CodeProject renders the <code> tag literally. The opening tag is shown on-screen but the closing tag is hidden. You can see this on my recent blog posts like this one:
Blogging on GitHub[^]
This gets vastly worse if the <pre> tag already contains syntax highlighting. For example see Building a table of contents in Javascript[^] or How to export a blogspot blog to HTML/GitHub with C#[^]
P.S. Ctrl+Z is broken when editing article HTML.
|
|
|
|
|
From the W3C page[^]:
Quote: Preformatted text between the start and end PRE tag is rendered using a fixed with font, in addition whitespace characters are treated literally. The spacing and line breaks are rendered directly, unlike other elements, for which repeated whitespace chararacters are collapsed to a single space character and line breaks introduced automatically.
There are two schools of thought on PRE tags
1. Text inside a PRE tag is pre-formatted. Keep it simple. There's no need to use superfluous decoration.
2. (The semantic argument) PRE says "maintain whitepace formatting" and CPDE says "this is code". The two should go together. Except (in my view) your mixing semantic HTML with formatting HTML which in some minds is a bad thing.
Really, what we should have is <div class="code">
What we're doing isn't "wrong". It's just how we do it in order to keep things simple. the issue we came across with code snippets in PRE tags was that authors often forgot to HTML encode tags in snippets (eg snippets of HTML) and so we instituted a policy of auto-encoding all HTML tags inside PRE blocks, with a few exceptions such as B,I,U and SPAN (to allow emphasis).
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
![Sheep | [baah]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/sheep.gif)
![Good Stuff | [The good stuff]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/vegemite.gif)
without Outlook freezing.