PS Please can anyone tell me how to turn http links into actual clickable links on this forum??!!!

Thanks all :D

PS Please can anyone tell me how to turn http links into actual clickable links on this forum??!!!

Thanks all :D

BBCode :)

but the link between [url] [ /url] tags (minus the space in the second one)

---

Kathryn :o)

As per http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/bbcode.php (the 'using BB tags' page).

The question gets asked frequently about GPUs etc. I don't think any Boinc projects use this currently. There is a possibility of running on the PC3 in the future.


-- Edit: Snap! :-)

---

PS Please can anyone tell me how to turn http links into actual clickable links on this forum??!!!

You can use one of the following, but without the spaces.

[ url ]http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda.html[ /url ]
gives:
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda.html

or

[ url=http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda.html ]clicky[ /url ]
gives:
clicky

---

BBCode :)

but the link between [url] [ /url] tags (minus the space in the second one)

Thanks Kathryn! - WOW all this new fangled elctronical majic trikery!

Splitting off "hidden" his question and answers from others to this thread.

Hi all,

here is a suggestion for our new friend, and a suggestion for the devs.

On the subject of bbcode, here is how you include an image:

[ img ] http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/user_profile/images/2238_avatar.jpg [ /img ]

which when you take the spaces out of the tags gives



The image can be one from the current server (sometimes called "including" an image), or from any other server on the net ("transcluding" an image). Many of us do that to make our stats appear in our sigs, for example.

Now, here comes a suggestion for the devs:

The http standards advise us always to include a text alternative to an image, for the convenience of users using Lynx, or users who can't see, or both.

For the convenience of everyone else, on most modern browsers the alt text shows in a bubble when you roll over the image.

The bbcode as currently implemented does not allow any of this. It is just an image and nowt else.

My suggestion on this would be to implement the following, in the spirit of the two forms of the [ url ] tag:

[img=http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/user_profile/images/2238_avatar.jpg]alt text[/img]

To future readers: if you see a graphic immediately above, you know that my suggestion has been adopted ;-)

The existing form of the [ img ] tag would remain, of course, to provide compatibility.

River~~

---

My suggestion on this would be to implement the following, in the spirit of the two forms of the [ url ] tag:

[img=http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/user_profile/images/2238_avatar.jpg]alt text[/img]

I'll forward it to Rytis, but wonder why you want it. you can use the embedded url under a picture already. Why the need for alt text? Mouse-overs?

---

I'll forward it to Rytis, but wonder why you want it. you can use the embedded url under a picture already. Why the need for alt text? Mouse-overs?

He has already explained it; graphic-less browsers or browsers with graphics disabled. Remember search engines count as graphic-less browsers, as well as screenreaders for blind people.

Furthermore, Firefox doesn't (and devs have claimed that absolutely never will) show alt text as a tooltip on mouseovers; that's what title="" is for. The HTML specification kind of says so.

I'll forward it to Rytis, but wonder why you want it. you can use the embedded url under a picture already. Why the need for alt text? Mouse-overs?

He has already explained it; graphic-less browsers or browsers with graphics disabled. Remember search engines count as graphic-less browsers, as well as screenreaders for blind people.

So he has... teaches me not to skimread when busy with other things. :)

---

So he has... teaches me not to skimread when busy with other things. :)

Oh who doesn't know what that is like... :)

I'll forward it to Rytis, but wonder why you want it. you can use the embedded url under a picture already. Why the need for alt text? Mouse-overs?

He has already explained it; graphic-less browsers or browsers with graphics disabled. Remember search engines count as graphic-less browsers, as well as screenreaders for blind people. ...

and compliance with the spirit of the RFC. (Tho Nicolas has pointed out in another thread that that is not really regarded as an issue within BOINC)

And arguably, tho I didnt mention it before, compliance with the law in England & Wales (Disability Discrimination Act). It opens up liability to litigation if we (*) don't take reasonable steps to include disabled people, and as the standards have been pushing ALT text for the convenience of blind users ever since the IMG tag came in, nobody can claim it is an unreasonable request. Now that is a huge pending litigation mountain...

Edit: (*) we = English users, especially those running projects based in England & Wales

R~~

And arguably, tho I didn't mention it before, compliance with the law in England & Wales (Disability Discrimination Act). It opens up liability to litigation if we (*) don't take reasonable steps to include disabled people, and as the standards have been pushing ALT text for the convenience of blind users ever since the IMG tag came in, nobody can claim it is an unreasonable request. Now that is a huge pending litigation mountain...

Edit: (*) we = English users, especially those running projects based in England & Wales

R~~

And while we're on the subject of the DDA, whocrazy's post on the BOINC Manager board alerts us to at least as serious - IMHO, possibly more serious - breach of the same Act.

I took Microsoft to task under the Act when they started asking users to re-key the code from the Certificate of Authenticity, as part of an early version of the Genuine Windows Advantage anti-piracy scheme. I'm pleased to say they took it seriously, and I think they changed the validation system - at least, I haven't been caught out by it again. I think the Open Source community should strive to achieve the same standards as we would expect of Microsoft, Apple et al.

---

and compliance with the spirit of the RFC. (Tho Nicolas has pointed out in another thread that that is not really regarded as an issue within BOINC)

I don't think there is an RFC about HTML, but W3C standards for HTML aren't followed by BOINC at all (try any BOINC page on an HTML validator). Not even XML standards are followed, the XML parser used everywhere on BOINC (like scheduler requests on both client and server side) requires each tag on a separate line. Ignoring whitespace is an important feature of XML.

HEY!
I'm new to BOINC.