images not displaying, only seeing links
-
-
Just fell back to 0.2.1 and things are working again. Another bad plugin update. So unreliable. This is the problem with keeping functionality in plugins.
-
@mlnews said:
Just fell back to 0.2.1 and things are working again. Another bad plugin update. So unreliable. This is the problem with keeping functionality in plugins.
Why did we try to update that plugin? It was working well this weekend.
-
A patch for it came out, so we patched
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A patch for it came out, so we patched
Is this one of those scenarios where if it ain't broke, patch it until it is?
-
@mlnews said:
Just fell back to 0.2.1 and things are working again. Another bad plugin update. So unreliable. This is the problem with keeping functionality in plugins.
No, this is completely your choice for using a plugin instead of users actually putting in the correct syntax for the images. .
Markdown is not that hard. I've been using forums for years. this is nothing new. It used to be BBCODE or HTML.
But that aside, the insert image button should offer a choice to put in the syntax like the link button does instead of only requiring the upload
-
@JaredBusch said:
@mlnews said:
Just fell back to 0.2.1 and things are working again. Another bad plugin update. So unreliable. This is the problem with keeping functionality in plugins.
No, this is completely your choice for using a plugin instead of users actually putting in the correct syntax for the images. .
It's completely my choice, yes, but it is still functionality that is broadly designed and isn't supported in the core. The basic markup is the same way, actually. Even though we "choose" to have the platform do this, it is still the fault of the plugin for not being tested and of the core platform for choosing to leave all features external. And for not providing a simple interface for people to put in images. Say anything you want, even IT users broadly can't figure out the image insertion syntax as we've seen. This is one of those cases where in your world it's easy, but for most people they are not aware of the syntax, unsure how to look it up and have been unable to use it.
Reverse this discussion and imagine I had made the statement that this was your fault for using the platform and that this was easy for users to put in the syntax. You'd tear me apart for living in "Scott World" with me making up what is and isn't easy for "normal" people.
We added this plugin specifically because it had become an issue.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Markdown is not that hard. I've been using forums for years. this is nothing new.
Shouldn't be. But even internally I have a whole team that refuses to use MediaWiki because it's too hard for them to use. If they only included a button that filled in the empty syntax I think that this would work. But without it, even explaining to people how to include an image has been difficult to do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's completely my choice, yes, but it is still functionality that is broadly designed and isn't supported in the core. The basic markup is the same way, actually. Even though we "choose" to have the platform do this, it is still the fault of the plugin for not being tested and of the core platform for choosing to leave all features external.
This I do not argue. the plugin should have been tested. It seems it was not.
@scottalanmiller said:
And for not providing a simple interface for people to put in images. Say anything you want, even IT users broadly can't figure out the image insertion syntax as we've seen. This is one of those cases where in your world it's easy, but for most people they are not aware of the syntax, unsure how to look it up and have been unable to use it.
The entire syntax issue would never have been an issue if the core insert image function worked like the insert link. This would resolve the entire thing. The existing function is an "upload image" function not an insert image function. That is the only piece that should be "core." There no missing functionality in the platform. The platform supports markdown, completely as simple as that..
-
@JaredBusch said:
The entire syntax issue would never have been an issue if the core insert image function worked like the insert link. This would resolve the entire thing.
I agree, that there is a link but not a means to show a URL is confusing at best and leaves something really needed out. That's all that we need but instead plugins get made to work around it. I wonder why there is no plugin to make that button?
-
@JaredBusch said:
The platform supports markdown, completely as simple as that..
Then what is the function of the MarkDown plugin?
-
https://github.com/julianlam/nodebb-plugin-markdown#readme
NodeBB Markdown Parser
This NodeBB plugin is a parser that allows users to write posts using Markdown.
To customise options for the parser, please consult the "Markdown" page in the administration panel, under the "Plugins" heading.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
The platform supports markdown, completely as simple as that..
Then what is the function of the MarkDown plugin?
To allow you to disable markdown if so desired. not any different than PHPBB haivng a setting to disable BBCODE
-
Disable if desired? But the description makes it sound like you enable if desired, which we did. The wording is that it is not in the core, but in the plugin. If we remove the plugin and run with only the core, doesn't Markdown go away?
-
I'm lost, does the markdown work?
I tried using[img]http:\\testimage.com\test.jpg[/img]and it did not work
-
What markup is that that you are using? I've never seen that formatting before.
NodeBB uses this format:
 -
If you use the image uploading tool, it generates the correct format for you to see. Most people do that and ignore it, though, and don't realize that it tells them how to do it.
-
And what is up with all of your backslashes?
-
Dashrender is using a classic forum formatting.
It was extremely common for a very long time. I even tried it with the same formatting when uploading images wasn't working with the drag and drop functionality.
-
