Search found 22 matches

by phynixx
Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:47 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul
Replies: 48
Views: 37895

Re: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul

True but there should be a distinction made between ensuring coding is done in such a way that a user can't do something they shouldn't be able to via javascript, and ensuring that every single use of javascript is also coded with a non-JS version to be "friendly" to those that have it turned off. T...
by phynixx
Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:19 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul
Replies: 48
Views: 37895

Re: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul

When I said phpBB must be able to operate without javascript I meant exactly that. I did not say that we cannot add things like a javascript password check. All we need to make sure is that the board is still fully functional without javascript. If that means spending a lot more time trying to make...
by phynixx
Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:51 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul
Replies: 48
Views: 37895

Re: [RFC] Registration & Login Overhaul

I disagree! When my Internet is being extra extra slow and the developer has put the script in the head, I often disable js. If something doesn't work, I would consider that to be a bug. I notice that Facebook recently dropped support for non-js browsers :) A bug is something that doesn't work as d...
by phynixx
Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Include mobile style
Replies: 93
Views: 65376

Re: [RFC] Include mobile style

I would strongly disagree with optimising prosilver for mobile devices.It wouldn't be possible to reduce the size of the style significantly, which would defeat the point, as pretty much every mobile phone is capable of rendering full pages. Are you referring to the size of the code base, or the si...
by phynixx
Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:52 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] BBCode permissions and moving to all custom
Replies: 44
Views: 38982

Re: [RFC] BBCode permissions and moving to all custom

Thoughts from someone that started using the base install, then installed Advanced BBCode Box 3 (aka ABBC3) and wondered how he ever survived w/o it. +1 to making all bbcodes custom. AFAIK there are no core-functionality tie-ins to the base set of codes so let the board admin determine what his boar...
by phynixx
Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:56 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Include mobile style
Replies: 93
Views: 65376

Re: [RFC] Include mobile style

if mobile device is detected, add S_MOBILE switch I could get behind something like that. So long as it is standardized and made *very* public it would allow all style authors to provide branch functionality. i.e. "If you care about being mobile-accessible implement code that detects and acts on th...
by phynixx
Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:40 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Include mobile style
Replies: 93
Views: 65376

Re: [RFC] Include mobile style

Thoughts to possibly help this come along. All my opinion for perspective. Pick it apart and maybe the final result of this thread will be something that can be architected into code... To start I have to say a mobile-optimized style would be fantastic to have. I do not think it can be argued that m...
by phynixx
Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:18 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: One-click upgrades
Replies: 3
Views: 4261

Re: One-click upgrades

+1
by phynixx
Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:07 am
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Require Password Change On Login
Replies: 7
Views: 11966

Require Password Change On Login

Hi all. I've looked around for similar suggestions for 3.1, 3.2 & 4.0 and haven't come up with anything (although searching for 'password' linked to other very interesting suggestions). Anyways after what I hope was enough due diligence I'd like to make the following suggestion: Details : ACP -> Use...
by phynixx
Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:19 am
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] built-in profile fields to custom profile fields
Replies: 12
Views: 15745

Re: [RFC] built-in profile fields to custom profile fields

+1 here.

I run a board that is 100% private and for various reasons cannot, by policy, contain any personal information. I would love it if I could simply delete 90% of the unused fields.