Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Activity for trichoplax
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #289366 |
I can't think of an example of a problem that could arise if there were no tag limit. What sort of abuse were you expecting? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289353 |
I've edited my answer to try and make it more clear and to include the examples (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 |
Post edited: Link to 5 tag limit Meta post |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 |
Post edited: Clarify that this wouldn't mean trusting everyone |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289353 |
I wasn't suggesting relaxing the trust requirements entirely.
I wouldn't want to give arbitrary abilities to everyone as soon as they join a community. I was thinking that some actions could be trusted to slightly more people than currently (as the question suggests, but with undo allowing taking ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289353 |
I've raised a separate [discussion on the 5 tag limit](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/289364). (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289364 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Assessing the 5 tag limit We currently have a limit of 5 tags per question. Should we keep this the same or would any changes be of benefit? For example: - Should the limit be higher or lower? - Should there be different limits for different contexts: - Different communities? - Different categories? - Differe... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289353 |
It's interesting that we're both using the same argument (reduce administrative burden) for opposite opinions. Sounds like this would need careful discussion before deciding where to have undo and where to avoid it.
Note that I'm not suggesting the undo functionality be implemented any time soon. ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 |
Post edited: Fine tuning |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 |
Post edited: Improve structure |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 |
Post edited: Add subheadings for ease of reference |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289353 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Proposal to ease tag maintenance This is perhaps a longer term solution, with slightly broader scope than the question, but I'm mentioning it for consideration since the question made me think of it. It still makes sense to implement the more specific changes suggested in the question in the meantime. Trust, but implement undo ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289341 |
Post edited: Mention list is non-exhaustive |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289341 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How should a Codidact public API work? I'd like to make charts of user and community stats These could involve a large amount of data as the site grows, so should probably be links to a location that generates them once a day and/or caches them so they don't use the API every time someone views them. This is a non-exhaustive list of... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
In response to the stateful/stateless query:
My earlier comment was a contrived example imagining that we had a history API that could not be accessed without info only found in the response to the post API. I don't think this is realistic, but that's how I was imagining we could know that the req... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289338 |
I'd also bear in mind accessibility when considering use of a smaller font size. If a user has overridden their browser default font size to ensure they can read text on websites, then `<small>` may be a smaller font size than is comfortable to read. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289338 |
For your particular purpose, it's your decision how to format your own post, but personally I would find it easy to assume that a section in smaller font is more skippable. In a post of my own, if I wanted to distinguish something that the reader *must* be aware of I would aim to make it appear *dist... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289338 |
In general, I don't know the reason for the particular set of HTML tags that were chosen to be permitted. The list does change from time to time, so feel free to raise a feature request on Meta asking for any additional tags you would like to be added. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
It's good to hear that a URL is sufficient rather than the full licence text.
Even if it turns out that we need the URL in every response that contains licensed content, that doesn't seem too bad as it will be small in proportion to the length of most posts. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289338 |
Post edited: Add missing raw text input for the other half of the footnote Markdown |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289338 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Why is <small> HTML tag rendered differently in preview? Explanations for the current behaviour Rendered text is not small after saving The `` tag is not one of the currently supported HTML tags. Supported tags and attributes are discussed in the following Meta posts: - What html tags can we use in posts? - What class attributes can we (usefully) use... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289334 |
A fix is planned for the discrepancies between preview and saved post. If you're reading this and that fix has been released, then this post needs to be updated to take that into account. Feel free to reply to this comment to let me know it's time. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289334 |
Post edited: Fix explanation of manual p tags, and refer to HTML sanitiser instead of Markdown parser |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289337 |
Post edited: Change title to reflect that this is only for some posts |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289337 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Expanding a comment thread changes the width of some posts When a comment thread is expanded, the width of the post it is attached to in some cases increases. This seems to be rare (most posts do not change width when their comment threads are expanded), so I am only raising this for reference in case investigating it highlights something that needs to be fi... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289334 |
Post edited: Add note that a blank line does not have the expected outcome |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289334 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Why do HTML tags reduce my line spacing in Codidact posts? The cause of the lost line spacing The raw text of your post is converted to HTML ready to be displayed by your web browser. The text is split into paragraphs based on the presence of blank lines, and each paragraph is wrapped in a `` tag. This causes your browser to display it with the styling of a... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289333 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Why do HTML tags reduce my line spacing in Codidact posts? When I use an HTML tag to alter the appearance of a paragraph in a Codidact post, it works but the line spacing is reduced, which I do not want. Why is this? Is there anything I can do about it? Example Raw text input ```text A long, drawn out, meandering test paragraph. This is more than lon... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289331 |
Post edited: Put screenshot in a quote block to avoid it looking like the end of the post |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289331 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
I can mark my own answer as "Works for me" The "Works for me" reaction can be added to any answer, even if the reacting user is the author of the answer. For example, here is what an answer looks like if I post the answer and react to it myself: > An answer with a "Works for me" reaction from the same user Is this intended behaviour?... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289233 |
If we do end up showing previous flag info on the post page, we may want to consider making it a user setting. I can imagine situations where a user might want to keep such info only to their profile page, for example if working on something with a colleague who sees the questions they look up on the... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
Possibly relevant aside:
My impression of the problem people had with SE retrospectively changing all content to CC BY-SA 4.0 is that they objected to SE adding a new licence that they did not have the legal authority to decide on.
I see it as very important that we never accidentally provide a... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
I like this approach of only being required to make the licence available on request, rather than having to include it everywhere. I'd want to know what the legal situation is, and to what extent it varies by country, but my rough understanding of international copyright law is that if a licence is n... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
As for preferring option 2 of 3 from my first comment: No, I can't imagine anyone preferring that. I only included it as an approach that definitely doesn't cause any legal worries. If we can't agree on what is required for licensing, option 2 is still available. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
Interesting thoughts. I get 2 questions from this:
1. In those places where a licence is required, how much of it is required?
- a licence id?
- a licence short name such CC BY-SA 4.0?
- a URL for the licence text available online?
- the full licence text?
2. Where is a licence ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
So I guess we need to include the licence with any response that contains all or part of the content of any revision. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
Since the licence isn't editable I guess it applies to all edits regardless of who does the editing. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289322 |
Post edited: Mention limits and pagination |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289322 |
Good point. Thanks for raising this.
I don't know the best approach for this, but the options that come to mind are:
1. Include the licence with all licensed content (so questions, answers, articles, but not comments).
1. Only allow programmatically accessing content that does not require a li... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289324 |
I've now edited to tag this as a "bug" rather than a "feature-request", as it turns out that even if the user does take into account other posts on the page, it is not possible to avoid clashing with other footnotes as they are automatically numbered from 1 in each post, overriding any different numb... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289324 |
Post edited: Link to earlier post that explains this is a bug with no workaround |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289324 |
Thanks for finding that. It does look like mine is a duplicate. The comments there also explain that my untested workaround (using different footnote numbers in your own post than the other post on the same page) doesn't work - they will be automatically renumbered to use the smallest numbers, and en... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |