When you reply quoted and you want to interleave your stuff with their stuff you have to type in those quote and /quote tags which is annoying, wouldn't it be better to just have "> " at the start of the lines, which can then be autoconverted on the server backinto normal quotes? It'd be a lot easier that way.

Since no-one seems to read the tfountain.co.uk forums, I'll post this here instead:

Woops, sorry. Those forums don't get much traffic so I don't check them very often.

When you reply quoted and you want to interleave your stuff with their stuff you have to type in those quote and /quote tags which is annoying, wouldn't it be better to just have "> " at the start of the lines, which can then be autoconverted on the server backinto normal quotes? It'd be a lot easier that way.

It might appear a little easier for people used to the standard email/usenet quoting, but I really don't think that method would work.

For a start, how would you define 'the start of the lines'? Unlike on email/news, there's no fixed line width here. I guess you could use the width of the textarea box, but there would be no way to reformat a block of quoted text so things could get very messy. It would also become quite complicated for the script to work out which text is quoted and which isn't when the post is submitted.

I have been considering displaying a coloured line down the left hand side of indented text, using a table (one cell for the line and one for the text, with a lot of cell spacing), but as we'd then need an extra nested table for every section of quoted text I don't think that'd be a good idea either.

Also, unfortunately the majority of Internet users won't be used to the '>' quoting prefix. Most email users unfortunately use MS Outlook, which encourages users not to make any change to the message they are quoting and simply include their new message at the start.

I've not been posting to this forum for a long time, and I've really no idea about the code so I'm probably wrong.

Can't you just search paragraphs starting with > ?
No need to have a new > on each wrapped line.
Then just scan for two consecutive new-para characters (ie returns)
I imagine you'd need to check for multiple >'s, but not modify the end-point.

>>Doubly quoted text{return}
{return}
>singly quoted text{return}
{return}
some more text{return}

Enhancements would be to strip spaces etc.

Is it just me or do <quotes> currently sometimes turn into <blockquotes> which are then printed and don't indent?

On a related note, would it be possible to make the message box a little bigger? I seem to fill it up very quickly, and there is a lot of empty space on either side.

I'd have reply-and-quoted, but that gives an error-page..

It does? What error exactly?

Is it just me or do <quotes> currently sometimes turn into <blockquotes> which are then printed and don't indent?

I've noticed that actually, not sure what's causing it though. Seems to be a problem when you're quoting quoted text.

On a related note, would it be possible to make the message box a little bigger?

Possibly...

Also I prefer the [ quote ] method, if only it hadn't started doing the <blockquote> thing on nested quotes.

Line endings are entirely dependant on the browser - i.e. whether it supports textareas with physical wrapping or not.

That's what I thought John meant at first, but although if all browsers supported hard wrapping it would make writing the script easier, I think it might be possible without, which is what I think he meant.

Also I prefer the [ quote ] method, if only it hadn't started doing the <blockquote> thing on nested quotes.

I've fixed that bug now. And if the alternate quote method was introduced it'd certainly be an option rather than replace the current method, 'cause as I said, it's the standard approach in discussion forums.

I think I know what I mean anyway

People may not 'edit' quoted text exactly, but if you have a portion of quoted text like this:

> It's at that posh new restaurant you say? In
> That case I think I will come. What time should
> we meet?

And you wanted to reply with a time, you only need to quote:

What time should
> we meet?

In most email programs you can then hit a key to reformat that so that it's on one line starting with a >. There is no way of doing this in a textarea box.

And the rest of what I said still applies - it's still very fiddley for the script to work out what's quoted and what isn't (what happens if the text is meant to contain a '>' symbol for example?), and the majority of users (unfortunately) won't be used to the quoting method.

As for the script, it can just compare the start character of each line with > to see if it's quoted or not, if the text /does/ contain a >, it'd be just like if an email contained a >, everyone would get confused As an overall thing, I still think I've got an idea. Email me if you like (I find email more user friendly seeing as it's dedicated

Thanks,
john

The only email thing I know of that reformats is Zap (the PC ones seem to fail)

Pluto certainly used to, and my PC email program ("The Bat" ) does. I'm sure Marcel used to as well, but it's been a while.

I find that typing > is far easier than what I have to do now, type </quote><quote> around it! I don't know any email system that requires you to do that, so surely no-one will know to do that...

It's a standard method in discussion forum software, but I don't think either method is particularly intuitive.

The point I was trying to make before was that as most Internet users' only experience of email is through Outlook Express, I think most of them will be used to just ignoring quoted text completely rather editing it like you and me.

As for the script, it can just compare the start character of each line with > to see if it's quoted or not, if the text /does/ contain a >, it'd be just like if an email contained a >, everyone would get confused

When forms are submitted, the contents of each textarea box gets lumped together in a variable, so the script has no way of knowing where lines start and end. Even if we assumed that every > was the start of a line, there would be no way of knowing where that portion of quoted text ended. If you assumed it ended after at the next line break, then if anyone didn't leave a line between quoted text and new text, that would break it. If you assumed the quoted text ended after a maximum of a certain number of characters (probably the width of the textarea box), then when people only want to quote part of a paragraph of quoted text like in my example above, that would break the script, as they wouldn't have been able to reformat it like you would in an email program. And we can't assume people will edit the quoted text to make sure that each lines starts with a > .

As an overall thing, I still think I've got an idea. Email me if you like (I find email more user friendly seeing as it's dedicated

But if we discuss it here, other people can contribute .

It's nice to have feedback though, and it's certainly useful seeing as I'm currently working on the commercial version of the software; so keep it coming .

The only email thing I know of that reformats is Zap (the PC ones seem to fail)

Pluto certainly used to, and my PC email program ("The Bat" ) does. I'm sure Marcel used to as well, but it's been a while.

Well marcel certainly, and I thought pluto didn't even have an editor built in, let alone a split lines while preserving quoting feature. Are you sure it wasn't Zap (or maybe StrongEd) providing the feature? Anyway, I use other PC programs and manage to add it in easily every time.

I find that typing > is far easier than what I have to do now, type </quote><quote> around it! I don't know any email system that requires you to do that, so surely no-one will know to do that...

It's a standard method in discussion forum software, but I don't think either method is particularly intuitive.

The point I was trying to make before was that as most Internet users' only experience of email is through Outlook Express, I think most of them will be used to just ignoring quoted text completely rather editing it like you and me.

But surely if they are just ignoring it, they aren't going to be confused by that system either?

As for the script, it can just compare the start character of each line with > to see if it's quoted or not, if the text /does/ contain a >, it'd be just like if an email contained a >, everyone would get confused

When forms are submitted, the contents of each textarea box gets lumped together in a variable, so the script has no way of knowing where lines start and end.

No, the browser submits them including all line breaks, as you say below. PHP variables can contain line breaks, IIRC. This means you can check the start of the lines

Even if we assumed that every > was the start of a line, there would be no way of knowing where that portion of quoted text ended.

Ah, well that'd obviously be on the first line that doesn't start with "> ".

If you assumed it ended after at the next line break, then if anyone didn't leave a line between quoted text and new text,

How are you supposed to do that? Yes, if you just click in the source text and start typing it'll just insert it there, but it's the same with the curent system. You have to surround with those quote tags, where in my system it'd be surrounded with returns.

that would break it. If you assumed the quoted text ended after a maximum of a certain number of characters (probably the width of the textarea box),

No need, just wait for the next reutrn char

then when people only want to quote part of a paragraph of quoted text like in my example above, that would break the script, as they wouldn't have been able to reformat it like you would in an email program. And we can't assume people will edit the quoted text to make sure that each lines starts with a > .

They don't need to, there are already > chars in every line at the start. If they split a line, then as they do with email they'll have to add in the > whcih is far easier than adding a pair of tags.

As an overall thing, I still think I've got an idea. Email me if you like (I find email more user friendly seeing as it's dedicated

But if we discuss it here, other people can contribute .

Yeah but email's easier as I don't have to fiddle about with quote tags!!

It's nice to have feedback though, and it's certainly useful seeing as I'm currently working on the commercial version of the software; so keep it coming .

Hehe

And I agree with the thing about making the box bigger, if it was 80 chars and you formatted the return-"> " every, say 76 chars it'd look nice

The only email thing I know of that reformats is Zap (the PC ones seem to fail)

Pluto certainly used to, and my PC email program ("The Bat" ) does. I'm sure Marcel used to as well, but it's been a while.

Well marcel certainly, and I thought pluto didn't even have an editor built in, let alone a split lines while preserving quoting feature. Are you sure it wasn't Zap (or maybe StrongEd) providing the feature? Anyway, I use other PC programs and manage to add it in easily every time.

Pluto does have an editor built in, unless I'm going mad. I used to use Zap's email mode with Marcel (I think), so I know the difference.

I find that typing > is far easier than what I have to do now, type </quote><quote> around it! I don't know any email system that requires you to do that, so surely no-one will know to do that...

It's a standard method in discussion forum software, but I don't think either method is particularly intuitive.

The point I was trying to make before was that as most Internet users' only experience of email is through Outlook Express, I think most of them will be used to just ignoring quoted text completely rather editing it like you and me.

But surely if they are just ignoring it, they aren't going to be confused by that system either?

They'll probably ignore the 'reply with quote' option, but they may be confused by the presence of > characters in the message itself. Or are you suggesting only using the > character in the textarea box when you're replying and quoting a message?

Even if we assumed that every > was the start of a line, there would be no way of knowing where that portion of quoted text ended.

Ah, well that'd obviously be on the first line that doesn't start with "> ".

If you assumed it ended after at the next line break, then if anyone didn't leave a line between quoted text and new text,

How are you supposed to do that? Yes, if you just click in the source text and start typing it'll just insert it there, but it's the same with the curent system. You have to surround with those quote tags, where in my system it'd be surrounded with returns.

Hmmm. Good point.

As an overall thing, I still think I've got an idea. Email me if you like (I find email more user friendly seeing as it's dedicated

But if we discuss it here, other people can contribute .

Yeah but email's easier as I don't have to fiddle about with quote tags!!

Yes, it is getting quite annoying when the message has as many levels of quotes as this one, so I'm starting to see what you mean .

Anyway, you've half convinced me, so I might have a play and see how feasible it is in practice. But you won't ever see it on this forum unless Rich decides to install MySQL on the server so I can install the commercial version (when it's done) .

Line endings are entirely dependant on the browser - i.e. whether it supports textareas with physical wrapping or not.

That's what I thought John meant at first, but although if all browsers supported hard wrapping it would make writing the script easier, I think it might be possible without, which is what I think he meant.

> and here is some quoted
text
> which has been wrapped
incorrectly

That'd be hard to deal with. However if it was only soft wrapped in the browser, and previously hard wrapped by the script to include the quote chars that would be ok. Any sort of instertion of wrapping by the browser would break it badly (maybe that's why you're not seeing what I mean

If the script wraps it to say 77 chars, and the text box is 80 chars wide then it'll look nice and it'll still be obvious what's quoted and what's not.

Also I prefer the [ quote ] method, if only it hadn't started doing the <blockquote> thing on nested quotes.

I've fixed that bug now. And if the alternate quote method was introduced it'd certainly be an option rather than replace the current method, 'cause as I said, it's the standard approach in discussion forums.

Pluto does have an editor built in, unless I'm going mad. I used to use Zap's email mode with Marcel (I think), so I know the difference.

They'll probably ignore the 'reply with quote' option, but they may be confused by the presence of > characters in the message itself. Or are you suggesting only using the > character in the textarea box when you're replying and quoting a message?

Anyway, you've half convinced me, so I might have a play and see how feasible it is in practice. But you won't ever see it on this forum unless Rich decides to install MySQL on the server so I can install the commercial version (when it's done) .