Bug: Black background quote boxes

[NotHereToPlayGames]

As you can see in my above post, the black background IS due to the Dark Night Mode extension.

 

edit - well, "above post" if it wouldn't have started Page 2.

Edited November 5, 2021 by ArcticFoxie

[InterLinked]

3 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Not sure.  I "thought" I was downloading Iron 70 but my Help - About says 94.

This post is from Iron 70 with that Dark Night Mode extension.

Definitely not my thing!  Ton of purple "bars", brown "bars", nothing but "bars" all over the place.  UGLY.  But to each their own.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's all that great, either, I was just playing around.

I saw a few different ones but some required Chromium greater than what I had

Iron 70 is from October 2018.

[UCyborg]

The whole thing could be interpreted as the feature, forum simply accepts plain HTML in these text boxes, there's not something immediate like BBCode, that is used to have defined, restricted set of formatting features, at least that's one of the reasons it was developed for according to my understanding.

Even if you had a locked down browser without developer tools, it could still be done by editing memory, so then the further step would be using a locked down device - you see where this is going.

Who likes severely locked down hardware/software?

Edited November 6, 2021 by UCyborg

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Agreed.  Doesn't really seem like a bug afterall.  Kind of annoying in my view.  But as long as members don't "abuse" this 'feature', all should be fine.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Incidentally - from my own experiments, you have to PASTE the span codes into the reply box, you can't TYPE them into the reply box.

[jaclaz]

16 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

As you can see in my above post, the black background IS due to the Dark Night Mode extension.

 

edit - well, "above post" if it wouldn't have started Page 2.

I have a word for you, psst, come nearer, previous.

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

The whole thing could be interpreted as the feature, forum simply accepts plain HTML in these text boxes, there's not something immediate like BBCode, that is used to have defined, restricted set of formatting features, at least that's one of the reasons it was developed for according to my understanding.

Even if you had a locked down browser without developer tools, it could still be done by editing memory, so then the further step would be using a locked down device - you see where this is going.

Who likes severely locked down hardware/software?

No, it can NOT be interpreted as a feature, unless we accept the concept of "stupid feature".

Anything that prevents, obstacles or make overly cumbersome pursuing the scope of the board (which is exchanging information, reading each other advice, comments and ideas) is NOT a feature, it is a bug.

BBCode provided (and provides) all the basic, useful text formatting options (bold/italic/font/etc) and nothing more, i.e. it does what is *needed*, adding (or converting to) HTML is one of the many senseless "enhancements" of the board software that noone (I mean noone with a working brain) has ever possibly asked for and that was "forced" to everyone.

jaclaz 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

7 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

I have a word for you, psst, come nearer, previous.

Too funny.

8 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

No, it can NOT be interpreted as a feature, unless we accept the concept of "stupid feature".

It has been stumbled upon TWICE that I am aware of.

Too early to tell for this time around, but as long as no one "exploits" this 'feature' (I lean towards 'bug') then the forum remains clear, concise, and easily readable.

We have come full circle.  The very reason I started HTML and JS editing a long long time ago (then via Proxomitron, nowadays through Stylus and Tampermonkey) was because "members" did exploit these 'features' - DAILY.

Back then the biggest culprits were "marquee" text and the "blink" element.  Both are CHILDISH.

Both are also why still to this day I don't enable "signatures" on any forum I visit regularly.

[Dixel]

On 11/5/2021 at 6:09 PM, ArcticFoxie said:

Regarding "Dark Night Mode" extension - you may be interested to know that Chrome-based browsers (Iron is Chrome-based, but I assume you already know that) do not require an extension for that functionality.

Granted, there are pros (and cons) to using an extension.

But in case you are interested in trying Chrome-based browsers built-in functionality for "dark mode", open chrome://flags then type dark in the search field.

You're looking for one called Force Dark Mode for Web Contents.

There are several "types" of 'enable' but I suspect that just regular ol' Enabled is all you're really looking for.

 

I don't really like it but it does give you an option to try.

I'm not a fan of dark mode (hate it!) but I do understand why some like it (and why others hate it).

Not sure how your extension works, but the built-in makes web sites with an already dark background (ie, such as MSFN) now display with a gray background instead.

 

Long time ago [ when I told you about this flag ] it was still usable , but now it's almost obsolete . My friend , I'm afraid you can't catch up with the novelties by Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin. That's why people do need to use third party tools. Lemme show it to you. You need to enable the flag and visit a modern bloated website , let's say imdb.com. It just doesn't work .

Or you can try to search for any videos on duckgo . The flag distorts the thumbnails , look below. These are the most common websites , there are plenty of other examples.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I do not recall ever hearing you mention this flag, to be honest, but don't care either as far as that goes, life is too short 

The flag does have like 6 or 8 different "enable" styles (cannot verify as I use v11 by default and that flag is not in v11).

And as you know, I do not use "dark mode" (never will ).

I am about 80% complete with my own "dark theme" skin for users of my builds, so I'm not completely ignoring the useless-to-me "dark mode"  

 

Oh, and the ROCO screenshot is making me say this, can't quite place 'why', but here goes...  "Rock On!"...

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I am about 80% complete with my own "dark theme" skin for users of my builds, so I'm not completely ignoring the useless-to-me "dark mode"  

Oh, and the ROCO screenshot is making me say this, can't quite place 'why', but here goes...  "Rock On!"...

Dark mode and dark theme are absolutely different things . Dark theme will not make web pages dark , it's for browser's skin only. On the contrary , staring at a white page [while having a dark skin] is not OK. What's the purpose of such "theme" then ? I'm sorry , never used emojis , so you ain't gettin' any in return. 

P.S.

If you didn't like my example with the videos . just search for any vids you want , like I said , esp. for you ! I kinda knew you will be commenting on this . Do you have to comment on everything I write ? Some hidden agenda , maybe ? lol

EDIT:

If you wanna know , Roco is just what I searched for recently , no conspiracy here.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Dixel

[RainyShadow]

About pasting invisible tags, didn't (some) more recent browsers have the "paste as plain text" option as well as the normal "paste" in the right-click menu?

Maybe check if it produces the same result?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On 11/7/2021 at 8:13 PM, Dixel said:

Dark mode and dark theme are absolutely different things . Dark theme will not make web pages dark , it's for browser's skin only.

AGREED!

And that is certainly my goal with my "dark theme"!  But yeah, I may have inadvertently mixed the two adjectives in the past, don't know, not concerned.

HOWEVER, 360Chrome's 'official' "dark" theme AND mode are tied together, one in the same.  If you enable the dark THEME for your SKIN, then it gives you dark MODE for web sites such as Google and YouTube.

I agree with you that they should be "absolutely different things".

The end-user SHOULD be allowed to set the GUI to "dark" WITHOUT it changing the view of Google and YouTube (there may be others, don't use "dark" to really know).

Edited November 9, 2021 by ArcticFoxie

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On 11/7/2021 at 8:13 PM, Dixel said:

Do you have to comment on everything I write ?

H#LL No!

I comment on topics I like, PERIOD. I'm not sure if your post here is "conceit" or "ego". Nor am I really sure what the difference is.

I visit the Unread and the Active links, the answer to your question is H#LL NO!.  I was already active in THIS thread, so I replied.  I "see" the HUNDREDS of posts you have in OTHER threads, and H#LL NO!, I do not reply to everything you write.

I'll never fully understand you, dear friend.  Nor care to, for that matter.

You remind me of a "talkative" neighbor that I 'have to' say "hello" to when crossing at the mailbox.  Spend 20 minutes in a conversation I wish was over 18 minutes ago.  "Neighbors", what can you do?

Carry on, wayward son.

[VistaLover]

6 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

HOWEVER, 360Chrome's 'official' "dark" theme AND mode are tied together, one in the same.  If you enable the dark THEME for your SKIN, then it gives you dark MODE for web sites such as Google and YouTube.

I agree with you that they should be "absolutely different things".

The end-user SHOULD be allowed to set the GUI to "dark" WITHOUT it changing the view of Google and YouTube (there may be others, don't use "dark" to really know).

Fairly recent Chromium and Firefox based browsers have a way of advertising to sites the skin (GUI) mode (light | dark) they're on; to accommodate, many sites today, like the ones you referenced, offer a light or dark CSS to match the advertised browser skin; by default, the dark site CSS is served if a dark browser skin is being detected; again, to avoid confusion, this is different to force-enabling "Dark Mode in Web Content" (in Chromium); the latter enforces a dark mode locally, post site load, no matter the flavour of the CSS the site serves...

Some of the darkCSS-enabled websites provide a way of overriding the default auto behaviour, i.e. you can select light-mode site CSS even on dark browser skin, and this is usually done through site settings (where available); user selection is stored in cookie(s), which then have to be protected (via a cookie extension) to avoid repeating the process in every browser session (if you delete cookies on browser exit) ...

E.g. in 360EEv12, with the dark skin installed and "chrome://flags/#enable-force-dark" set to (default | disabled), the site will load in its dark flavour, 

but you can still choose light mode via Settings:

youtube.com is similar to google.com; github.com however, will allow to choose a light-mode site version only to signed-in members...

FWIW, recent Serpent 52.9.0 (and, I believe, NM28, too) has an about:config setting, 
browser.display.prefers_color_scheme
that does the same thing; default value of 1 will auto-load light google.com pages; there don't exist any official dark Complete Themes (skins) for St52 (several exist for NM28), but user-setting a value of 2 in St52 will auto-load dark google.com pages even on a light Complete Theme:

Edited November 9, 2021 by VistaLover

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Makes sense, thanks for the info.