|
In Q&A Section you will get a decorated link on Pasting in chrome.
But you will have to write it manually with other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiren Solanki wrote: write it manually
No, you don't have to write it manually. As I stated you can use the link[^] toolbar item.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
In Q&A Section Give any answer suppose.
->Copy any link.
->Select any word from your answer.
->Paste the copied link on your selected word.
->Link will be automatically rendered and selected word will be automatically set on link and you will not need to write link[^] from toolbar.
This isn't the same for any forum, I mean of.
|
|
|
|
|
Manual: done, operated, worked, etc., by the hand or hands rather than by an electrical or electronic device
Clicking a toolbar item is not manual.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
I got your point Mark.
But I mean of Manual means you need to first take a link draft from toolbar then paste link twice and then write a word between anchor tags.
Okey, As you now got my point then can you let me know the reason behind that why I need to take a link from toolbar for the forum except Q&A. ?
|
|
|
|
|
Hiren Solanki wrote: you let me know the reason behind that
Do you understand this forum is for people to REPORT bugs. I only reported it, it's up Chris, et al to fix it. Wether they communicate the reason and fix is up to them.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
This should be working now
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to be good now. Thanks
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was all I could do not to add a semi-political statement to my comment...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
What is all you could do? I don't seen anything anywhere?
|
|
|
|
|
There was that short-lived message John left at the article's forum, but it has been retired now.
FWIW: I don't object to the article, if that is a plug it is an elaborated one, and I have seen many more recently.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I see...I was too late to the party then.
I don't generally object either, as it is not blatent in your face advertising, but as the product is not available as a free version, then it must be in breach of the submission guidelines based on these statements contained within;
An article is acceptable if it can be used on its own using the tools, libraries and components that a developer working in the given technology could reasonably be expected to own, or which is free (as in no charge).
For instance, a Visual Studio developer would reasonably be expected to have Visual Studio, Windows, and more often than not Office. They would also have copies of NUnit and FxCop since these are available for free. Articles on these technologies are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: An article is acceptable if it can be used ...
Haha. Flawed rule, it does not say "An article is not acceptable if it can not be used ...", does it?
And what about book reviews? I could probably buy any book that gets reviewed (Amazon rocks), however CP nor anyone else can expect me to do so. And yet I like seeing book reviews on this site.
So I take the intended rule in a pretty relaxed way, everything that looks good, shows an effort and isn't blatant propaganda, goes for me.
|
|
|
|
|
all valid points, it can stay. 
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Flawed rule, it does not say
Indeed, which leaves articles that aren't within the guidelines open for debate.
Also, books are a bit of an exception. Maybe a reader can't be expected to own a particular book (why would they if they were reading a review), but they can be expected to own books and to want to buy a similar book if they are reading a review for it. Also, the guidelines pertain to "tools, libraries and components", not to books (though I suppose libraries contain books  ). And the guidelines apply to most, but not all articles. For example, I doubt that particular section applies to the product showcase articles, or books for that matter.
Anyway, I haven't read the article in question, so I don't have an opinion on it. Just read this thread and thought I'd throw out a few of those points.
Luc Pattyn wrote: I take the intended rule in a pretty relaxed way, everything that looks good, shows an effort and isn't blatant propaganda, goes for me.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Amazon rocks
Propaganda! 
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't you once give me a hard time about writing statements in the negative, and that writing them in the positive was easier to read?
Seriously though: what cane are you thinking of that satisfies "is acceptable if it can be used" but fails "is not acceptable if it can't be used"?
As to the rule, it's specifically there to stop the site being flooded by evey man and his dog writing articles promoting their paid application. Imagine if the site were opened up to articles on commercial third party products: the list of new articles would be long, repetitive and probably have lots of FREE! in the titles.
No thanks.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Didn't you once
Most probably yes. Negatives should be avoided whenever possible as they can only lead to confusion.
Chris Maunder wrote: what cane are you thinking of ...
Rules are limitations by their very nature; your statement did not impose any limitation, all it did was stating that something was acceptable. Except in totalitarian regimes, everything is allowed, unless it is expressly forbidden.
The most discrete fix could be:
An article is acceptable only if it can be used on its own using the tools, libraries and components that a developer working in the given technology could reasonably be expected to own, or which is free (as in no charge).
And now I have to find a way to sneak "free" into my next article's title... which may be hard as the subject has been decided on already.
|
|
|
|
|
I started to give an example of "sh*t happens" regarding the stuxnet virus disrupting his country's attempts to generate weapons grade uranium - a complete unplanned-for event. It was all typed out, and I was ready to hit submit, and then thought better of it.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
When an article is approved, all votes/comments gathered for that article are removed.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Tye right-side panel (where the latest lounge messages are shown, along with articles needing approval, the latest surevy, etc, is too narrow. The tabs for the articles needing approval are wrapping to a second row.
Using FireFox 3.6.13 or IE8
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
is OK in FF3.6, however IE7 seems to leave the rightmost half inch empty for no good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using FF 3.6, and that's where I noticed it.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe one of us needs a barrage of CTRL/F5's?
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] looks more like an advertisement.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
