Author Options:

Square Brackets in Back Talk Answered

Hey Dev Team This isn't exactly critical... But when you've got a moment to spend a few cycles on, superuser me and check out my backtalk page. Any projects with a square bracket (probably with the first char only), messes with the UI and puts a red box around that field. I used square brackets when I did those collegiate meal projects.... Happy new year :)


Hi, Trebuchet. The red boxes are part of the code update that was deployed this week. Instead of treating arbitrary strings as (wrong) hyperlinks, it notices the invalid URL and calls it out with the red box. If you want to use literal square brackets in your text use numeric entities, [ and ] will produce [ and ].

It looks like the code is interpreting the title field literal in some places (such as in the actual published instructable) and in other cases, attempting to execute the title field as markup.

For Example - This Project I added &#91 and 93. In viewing the project, it will not show square brackets. BUT, in the backtalk page, it looks for markup and applies.

Are you working for instructables? If yes, let me know that you saw this so I can restore the original formatting.

Also, I noticed the new code doesn't like links that ref. Archive.org
See Two Links in this Step. Both of those urls work, but I don't know what the site is looking for when it checks for a valid address...
I like using arichive.org in places where I feel the linked site will go down in long term....


I think I've realized that you're talking about the titles of Instructables shown on your Profile page. Is that right?

It appears to me that (surprisingly enough) I'bles is handling the literal square brakets correctly. If you are seeing something else, it would really help Rachel if you took a screen shot and appended it to the forum topic.

Now, if you go back and edit those I'bles, does the title come back for you with the literals still embedded? Or have they been changed to explicit bracket characters, and you then have to re-replace them with the entities again?

Hi, Trebuchet. I'm not I'bles Staff :-) I'm just a guy who's been using HTML since Tim deployed it. I have been working with NachoMahma on putting together a text-formatting I'ble (still incomplete, as it's a moving target :-( ), so I do have some familiarity with how it works, and especially with some of the irritating gotchas.

You're very right about problems with where markup (especially entities) is interpreted vs. literal. Basically, the comment fragments shown on your backtalk page have the markup codes stripped out or otherwise mangled. Just ignore them. If you follow the comment link, the formatting should be correct.

As for the "archive.org", it looks like that site is embedding a redirection in its own URL. I am not convinced that that is actually valid under the HTML specification (I would need to re-read it). Why don't you try avoiding the redirection and just provide direct links to the destination (i.e., strip everything prior to the second "http:").

Blah, ignore everything above the horizontal line... I totally forgot the semicolon. Thanks :)

Okay, I take it back... the backtalk page still doesn't like it ....