Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Post Reply
jimmygoon
Registered User
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:59 am

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by jimmygoon » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:29 am

Omnidon wrote: I still say that it should be possible for the admins to allow *any* filetype, at their discretion. Admins are already capable of causing many security issues in other aspects of the forum, so why should they be crippled by an artificial limitation in this area?

In phpBB 2, the admins could enable HTML tags by adding them to the list. Why not do the same for attachment extensions?

Your list would make for a good default set of extensions, but ultimately this is a decision that should be left up to the admin.
Yawnster wrote: SWF - Use the [flash] BBcode Instead.. Almost identical functionality..


To my understanding, the attachment feature uploads the file to the server, whereas the BBcode feature just hotlinks the file from another server.
This is far from identical functionality. Many users lack the ability to upload files conveniently.

It would be a considerable risk to allow it in a public forum, but I run multiple private forums and think that I should be able to make that decision for myself.


agreed. 100%.

Yawnster
Registered User
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by Yawnster » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:55 am

I think you guys are getting mixed up with my personal views over Miek's and the projects in general..

I believe personally that there should be a number of attachments that are at least limited to responisble users, (PHP, PL, PY etc..), I feel that this would be better for all parties involved..

However.. from my understandings of what Miek has written.. the phpBB Development Team has decided that all extensions will be permitted.. (Please say if I am wrong Miek to clear this up).. But there will be warnings on certain file-types..

Yawnster

PS.. This may not even pose a problem if this solution is looked at in much detail..

User avatar
Acyd Burn
Posts: 1838
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Behind You
Contact:

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by Acyd Burn » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:57 am

Yawnster wrote: I think you guys are getting mixed up with my personal views over Miek's and the projects in general..


Meik ;) It is looking strange, but it's generally only another form of Mike (and is spelled the same).

Image

el noobe
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:54 am
Location: Hanover, Germany
Contact:

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by el noobe » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:14 pm

When I looked through the current default list of extensions in CVS and Yawnster's list I couldn't find the MIDI extension (*.mid). I think this could easily be added without any security issues. It would be nice for many musician boards to share (not finished) song ideas without uploading huge WAV files. As far as I know, most browsers are even able to play midi files without any plugins, so why not adding MIDI? :)
el noobe

WOGzor
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:17 pm

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by WOGzor » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:36 pm

it would be nice to have .mkv and .mka extensions included too, as they are becoming increasingly popular container for media

DanoruX
Registered User
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by DanoruX » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:13 pm

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but .docx and the other new office 2007 formats should be included as .doc (and the other pre-2007 formats) will become legacy when office 2007 is released.

muse-ic
Registered User
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:23 am

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by muse-ic » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:33 pm

DanoruX wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but .docx and the other new office 2007 formats should be included as .doc (and the other pre-2007 formats) will become legacy when office 2007 is released.


yeh...i hadn't thought of that!

User avatar
mikovchain
Registered User
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:16 am

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by mikovchain » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:49 pm

...
I think several picture formats and zip&rar is enough.
Don't make things so complex
PHPBB CHINA For Chinese Users

Yawnster
Registered User
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by Yawnster » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:39 pm

el noobe wrote: When I looked through the current default list of extensions in CVS and Yawnster's list I couldn't find the MIDI extension (*.mid). I think this could easily be added without any security issues. It would be nice for many musician boards to share (not finished) song ideas without uploading huge WAV files. As far as I know, most browsers are even able to play midi files without any plugins, so why not adding MIDI? :)


Well this list is purely for the default attachments, MIDI files would certainly be a specialised file format in my eyes, because I dont even know how to configure my machine to use them just yet and ive been playing aorund with computers all my life :), I will add it in a bit later on when I get a chance to review this topic and add all others too.. (Giving appropriate suggestions)
WOGzor wrote: it would be nice to have .mkv and .mka extensions included too, as they are becoming increasingly popular container for media


Never heard of these, so not sure of their popularity, but im fairly certain by the lack of support for them on my current system and the lack of hearing about them in general would suggest that they are not quite mainstream enough.. But i will again add them in when I get the time to review this topic..
DanoruX wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but .docx and the other new office 2007 formats should be included as .doc (and the other pre-2007 formats) will become legacy when office 2007 is released.


This is just the reason I started this topic, as I am not an MS User I do not have this kind of experience, may I ask for a list of all potential OpenXML file formats please, if thats not too much trouble.. Thanks
mikovchain wrote: ...
I think several picture formats and zip&rar is enough.
Don't make things so complex


But this list is just about what pictures exactly :)

Anyway, thats about it.. (Damn I love mutliple quotes, but think ive found a bug Meik :), gonna go post it now..)

Yawnster

ramit
Registered User
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:34 pm

Re: Consensus on Attachment Extensions..

Post by ramit » Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:09 pm

Not sure if this is the correct area to post this comment...

The Attachment mod, is a GREAT mod, glad to see it rolled into the 3.0.

PDF is widely used.. imagemagick supports generating a thumbnail of a pdf.
I know the Attachment mod will support uploading of a PDF.
But presently doesn't support generating a thumbnail of the PDF.

As it's being applied to phpBB3.0 , can the thumbnail of a PDF support be added?

Thanks,
Bob

Post Reply