Need help implementing the HCS forum on a site by Captain Ron at 7:01 PM EDT on July 30, 2011
Hey, hcs.
You've got some cool stuff & I like the way you implemented the forum. I'm thinking of implementing it on my own site, but I have a couple of questions.
Can you provide any specific instructions on implementing the forum on my own site? Because I know this forum requires an SQL database, but I'm not sure how it should be populated (or if the forum's PHP code will automatically create the schema when I log into it for the first time).
And what's the difference between the BB code tags for emphasis & italics? Couldn't I just remove the emphasis tag from your source & replace it with another tag/function?
You'll also need two files, dblogin.php and dblogin_write.php, which should respectively contain a function called dblogin() and dblogin_write(). These are for connecting in to the MySQL database, they should return the handle returned from mysqli_connect. The user in dblogin need only give SELECT permission, dblogin_write's user needs SELECT, INSERT, and UPDATE.
Let me know if you need anything else.
[edit] There's not a good reason beyond pedantry to have both <i> and <em>.
Hmm... Interestingly enough, one would expect some kind of a download for the forum software's dependencies if the main forum software itself is open for public access/usage.
By dblogin.php & dblogin_write.php, are you actually talking about this file with a modified version, or are you talking about two separate PHP files that you've made yourself?
Yeah; even though the forum itself may be old, it's still very useful (especially on web hosts that impose heavy limits on SQL usage; compared to other forums, this one's the only truly light forum that has user authentication).
Anyways, thanks to your help, I now understand how the dblogin() function works. As for the dblogin_write() function, is it safe for me to assume that its PHP code is the exact same as what you posted above (& that forum.php does all the work of giving users SELECT, INSERT & UPDATE permissions)?
There's actually plenty good reason to have both <i> and <em>. Italics is about styling text, while emphasis is about emphasising text. It might look the same, but if you're visually impaired and using a screen reader, the distinction is quite important. There aren't any shades of meaning in Super Mario Galaxy (italics), whereas a sentence like "That was slightly (emphasis) annoying," there's a good chance sarcasm is being applied. It's the same reason there are different HTML tags for <b> and <strong>.
That's true to a certain extent, but again, <i> & <em> (outside of a text reader) implies the exact same thing to an otherwise able-bodied user (i.e.: a user who's not legally blind). Also, the text reader will still read the text as it appears (though without any articulation of words using the <em> tag); it's not like the text reader can blue-screen a computer if the <em> tag isn't used. Furthermore, I could argue for the reason why there's no <strong> tang on this forum, but for all intents & purposes, I have no real need for the <em> tag in my own application.
This is aside from the fact that <em> & <i> (as well as <strong> & <b>) have, for actual presentational purposes, essentially been superseded by CSS code anyways (as well as the fact that every other forum software essentially uses <i> & <b> instead of <em> & <strong>, thereby making them all monotonous when read through a text reader). Besides, I've decided to replace the <em> with a custom <yt> tag; I want to see if I can implement a working YouTube video embed tag.
In any case, I'm still curious whether or not dblogin.php's code is the same as that of dblogin_write.php's.
dblogin_write has a dblogin_write() function that works the same way but uses a user with more permissions. This is based on the principle of least privilege, so bug in read access (which is by far the most common operation) will not be able to damage the DB.
If you don't have different users with different permissions for this, then you can use the same user in both functions, I think.
In case it isn't clear, we're talking about SQL DB users, not forum users. HCS Forum has only one type of user, any admin stuff is done through directly editing the DB.
[edit] Re <i> vs. <em>, at the time I wrote the forum I was regularly using <em> when I actually meant emphasis, so it made it in. I've never used <strong>. I don't see why it is necessary to remove markup in order to add your own (yt), in any case, it's not like the time running that regex is significant.
Ah; now I completely understand what you're getting at. The dblogin() & dblogin_write() functions exist depending on the different SQL database users & their respective permissions. Since I'll be the only SQL DB user, I can safely change forum.php & dblogin.php in a way that I'd only need to include dblogin.php (if I've understood you correctly). Otherwise, I could just copy dblogin.php, change the variables a bit & save it as dblogin_write.php.
Hopefully, thanks to you, implementing this forum on my site will be a cakewalk. I'll post back with my forum's (link once I get it working) & send you my modifications (especially my YouTube tag once it's been tested).
Of course you're free to remove any functionality you like for your own purposes, but I'm not really following your reasoning. Besides hcs's point that there's no need to remove one tag to add another, your thought pattern seems to run something like "Well what have ramps ever done for me, the walking man?" You're right that it looks the same visually unless specifically styled otherwise, but the tag's functionality isn't in how it looks different, since it's deliberately not for cosmetic purposes.
To hcs: Don't worry about liability; there's no such thing in free software. Thanks for all the help; I know it will work. I have that feeling. ;)
To Vague Rant: It looks like you're trying hard to convince me to leave the <em> tag (& trust me; it's really not working). This forum's the only one I've seen that supports the <em> tag (which is also weird because it doesn't support the <strong> tag). Maybe we should tell the crew at PunBB, phpBB & SMF, among other forum software groups to completely replace their use of <i> & <b> with <em> & <strong>; I don't think they'd comply (they'd just tell you to add the tags yourself).
Your argument seems to me that <em> is much better than <i> (it does all the same things <i> can do, which is nothing but slanting your text to an angle, plus it causes text readers to articulate their reading voice, even though the text will still be read & heard properly). Again, if I use <i> instead, the text reader will still read the word; other than voice articulation in readers, there's absolutely no significant difference & it's not the end of the world. I choose the simpler means (the same as other big forum software groups have done). So no matter how much you may present your cause, my requirements & targets that drive me to use the forum are different than yours. Different opinions for different uses; no need to try & convince me.
In any case, BB tags can always be modified later. Just let me do my thing & I'll contribute code to this forum as I go.
You're deeply mistaken about what I'm saying. Neither tag is better than the other. They're different and have different purposes. You can feel free to not cater to blind users, and you can feel free to justify it by saying others don't either, but at least understand why the tags exist before dismissing either. Or don't, it'd be nice to correct ignorance on the Internet once in a while, but I'm not about to bank on it happening.
I'm just kind of curious where you found Vague Rant saying that <i> and <b> tags should be removed for <em> and <strong> tags. I've read his post over a few times and I can't really see anything remotely close to your perversion.
Also, argument from majority isn't really *ever* a good one, but I guess it is crucial to those who present strawmen arguments.
arbingordon; I didn't say that Vague Rant said anything about abolishing <i> & <b>. He only said that <i> & <em> exist for the same reasons as <b> & <strong>, which I said that this forum doesn't support & that, since he supports greater accessibility for the visually impaired, that we should all formally complain to other forum software projects about their lack of emphasis tags (which would clearly lead to nothing, as you can still set whatever tags you want within whatever forum software you administer).
Vague Rant: I do understand why each tag exists; <i> is only a visual control of how text appears on screen, while <em> is both a visual & audible control of how text appears & is read. Your view seems to favor the <em> tag for greater accessibility (even though text will still be accessible through whatever screen reader is in use, regardless of audible changes in speech) & my view favors less redundancy for my own application of this software (thus my choice of removing one tag in favor of another).
But like I said earlier, my use of this forum is in an early stage & I'm just doing my own thing; if & when I decide to do something else to it, I'll do it. Once you decide to administer this forum on your own site, then you do whatever you want; I won't argue your decision on any change you may make, or any audience you decide to target.
Ultimately, arguing over an opinion doesn't result in anything constructive & you'll achieve nothing by trying to convince me otherwise, so let's just stop this. I've only joined this forum so that I could ask how to set it up on my own site & to help contribute certain modifications I may make; the last thing I want is an internet argument over something as insignificant as a choice between BB tags that can be changed at any time down the road.
Thank you, hcs, for enlightening me & thank you, Vague Rant & arbingordon, for your opinions.
Maybe we should tell the crew at PunBB, phpBB & SMF, among other forum software groups to completely replace their use of <i> & <b> with <em> & <strong>; I don't think they'd comply Your argument seems to me that <em> is much better than <i> if I use <i> instead When you word things this way, and argue against them you are implying that vague rant is suggesting you do these things (where, as far as I can tell, he has only suggested that you don't go out of your way to remove functionality because it has it's use). There is no *instead* in his argument, yet you argue that point that he isn't even arguing for.
Your view seems to favor the <em> tag for greater accessibility I'm not sure he made that point, again, it seems he has only queried why you would remove something when they can coexist just fine.
my view favors less redundancy for my own application of this software Ok, at this point you're actually presenting an argument to counter his - it took long enough but at least it's there. To follow vague rant's train of thought, you're figuring why bother with ramps when we already have stairs. The fact that it is redundant doesn't really effect anything; as hcs already stated the amount of time spent processing the tags is insignificant. A better argument here might be: But like I said earlier, my use of this forum is in an early stage & I'm just doing my own thing; if & when I decide to do something else to it, I'll do it. Once you decide to administer this forum on your own site, then you do whatever you want; I won't argue your decision on any change you may make, or any audience you decide to target. Simply because it is then much less of a real life example so much as a test case, and because no one can reasonably argue with the "I'll do what I want" mentality.
Lastly I must point out: arguing over an opinion doesn't result in anything constructive This is simply not true; a more accurate statement might be something like "arguing with bigots doesn't result in anything constructive", but to suggest that arguing over opinions never result in anything constructive is absurd.
Seriously?! Come on guys, you know very well this is a stupid argument (regardless of which side you're on). If Captain Ron is smart, he either won't respond (I wouldn't. Let people think what they want. It's a stupid argument), or he will ignore it. As for me, more than likely, if a response comes to my post, it's unlikely I'll respond (what would be the point?). Mouser X over and out.
Thank you, Mouser X; I'm glad to see that you're sensible enough to point out the needlessness of this, as I need not go further with arbingordon's persistence & clear attempt to insult/offend me.
Anyways, back to something more sensible; I don't know if hcs can tell from my coding whether or not this will work, but I've made an attempt at adding a YouTube video embed tag.
Halley; do you think that this would work, or have I done something incorrect that will prevent the tag from working? And pardon the way the forum software renders my code.
Sweet; I have a feeling this can be pulled off pretty well. Thank you for all your help. If it all works, I'll post back (& feel free to use whatever mods I make). ;)
Unfortunately, I have a problem with trailing backslashes after every apostrophe & quotation mark I type in a message. Can you recommend any way to rectify this?