#1 Edited by Alexander (1721 posts) -

Before, when I would post image I would add a bit of html and put this:

<img src="http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%20with%205.jpg">

or an iframe for youtube. It gave me a little more flexibility when adding media with my posts.

Since the redesign it seems I can't do that and I'm forced to upload to GB. Is there any way I can post an image to the site without uploading it?

#2 Posted by cclemon36 (180 posts) -

You can delete images from your profile by clicking Edit tags. Hopefully that helps.

#3 Posted by Alexander (1721 posts) -

Ok I can delete images it seems thank you, my larger question was about the HTML, whether we can or will be able to display remote image content.

#4 Posted by Bollard (5305 posts) -

No. They removed HTML embedding, it's a real shame.

Online
#5 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

This is one my biggest issues with the redesign, and I hope to god they bring it back/fix it soon.

#6 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1544 posts) -

The beta site had inline HTML that was a little different than the old site, but it still worked. When they removed that, you could still copy and paste an image from an external host, but now that throws up an error. RIP HTML/gifs.

The inline HTML on the beta site was pretty abusable (and was abused), so I can see why it was removed. I'm still going to miss it though.

Edit:

Hmm, so now you have to drag them? I guess someone will always find a way.

#7 Edited by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

So, apparently to add gifs to the post you just drag that gif into the text editor. The lack of adding HTML is rather depressing though.

#8 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1544 posts) -

<p style="font-size:5em;">Here's some text with some inline-css attached</p>

Oh, so it doesn't even change it into html at all anymore after you edit your posts. Last time I checked the beta site just broke the tag.

#9 Edited by Alexander (1721 posts) -

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1460/5d2h4l.gif

Well at least we can do that... even if it's not the most elegant way, bringing in the image in for me pushes out the editing features.
@snide are there plans to bring back HTML? It was one of the more unique aspects to the forum before. Support for remote content at least would be good.

#10 Posted by Forcen (1806 posts) -

I was going to embed a video from blip.tv and then I found out that I couldn't and I became sad.

#11 Posted by Video_Game_King (36110 posts) -

I just wish the Code button would make a comeback. Copy/pasting old blogs from Word is a great pain than copy/pasting them from Notepad.

#12 Edited by Forcen (1806 posts) -

I can't even embed youtube videos now. :(

I paste in an url to a youtube video and it says that it doesn't recognize that video service.

#13 Edited by lennoxxx (19 posts) -

[URL="http://us.playstation.com/playstation/psn/visit/profiles/lennoxyz"] [IMG]http://fp.profiles.us.playstation.com/playstation/psn/pid/lennoxyz.png[/IMG] [/URL] [/CODE

#14 Posted by tourgen (4432 posts) -

Can't really blame them. Allowing insertion of arbitrary HTML is a security issue.

#15 Edited by buckybit (1455 posts) -

@tourgen said:

Can't really blame them. Allowing insertion of arbitrary HTML is a security issue.

It's a link to very specific type of content, nor arbitrary HTML code. It's not cross-site scripting (which you can still deny, while allowing pics and vids to be embedded).

Don't start a security debate. Security vs Performance on high traffic websites - the first always loses. With GB, the second often loses too.

#16 Posted by mrpibb (460 posts) -

The decision was made to remove html was because it had been abused quite a bit before. We periodically look at putting it back into queue, but no decision has been made as to what we will allow and not allow (and there are some other items on the list that are higher priority currently).

Videos (youtube, etc) can be embedded thru the video link (we go thru embed.ly to try and make the video embeds as easy as possible).

Staff
#17 Posted by tourgen (4432 posts) -

@buckybit said:

@tourgen said:

Can't really blame them. Allowing insertion of arbitrary HTML is a security issue.

It's a link to very specific type of content, nor arbitrary HTML code. It's not cross-site scripting (which you can still deny, while allowing pics and vids to be embedded).

Don't start a security debate. Security vs Performance on high traffic websites - the first always loses. With GB, the second often loses too.

sorry, I thought we were talking about embedding HTML and not 1 specific tag type.

not starting a security debate either. There isn't one to be had. embedding arbitrary HTML is stupid end of discussion.