Minor format changes that propagate to later paragraphs

[collinsmark]

In the standard editor (not the BB code editor), if I highlight text and apply a format change, such as Bold, Italics, Underline, Strike-through, or Text Color, it properly changes the highlighted text for that particular paragraph, but then it (inadvertently) applies the same format change for all subsequent paragraphs.

Here is an example. Suppose the following is in the window used to write the text, and the window is in normal mode (not in BB code mode).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Test paragraph 1

Test paragraphghghg paragraph 2

Test paragraph 3

Test paragraph 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, highlight the "paragraphghghg" and click on the Strike-through button, S, or use the short-cut key (Ctrl-S).

The result is as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Test paragraph 1

Test paragraphghghg paragraph 2

Test paragraph 3

Test paragraph 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think carrying over that format change (intended for a single word) over to subsequent paragraphs is the intended action. Every time I make a small format change, I have to toggle over to the BB code editor and change the formatting manually.

I'm using Firefox 69.0 (64 bit).

 

[jedishrfu]

Ahh, JavaScript once again. I am reminded of the book:

JavaScript the Good Parts

It’s a good question for @Greg Bernhardt as perhaps there’s a more recent version of the editor part.

 

[phinds]

trying it trying it trying it

trying it trying it trying it

trying it trying it trying it

Son of a gun. I get the same thing. You CAN use the "remove formatting" icon to get rid of it (as I did for this paragraph) but you shouldn't have to.

Calling @Greg Bernhardt

 

[jedishrfu]

Or you could eschew using multiple paragraphs in favor of a wall of text.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

We have a small upgrade this weekend. Let’s see if that fixes it.

 

[Tom.G]

The first click on the S in the toolbar inserts the codes for 'Strike-thru'. the second click inserts 'Cancel Strike-thru'.

Here is an example with an extra space in the 'Strike-thru' code so it is not recognized.
[ S] <cursor is here>...
and you type stuff...
Now click S again, and code 'Cancel Strike-thru' ,[ /S] is inserted.

Just remember, when you are finished entering text that needs a 'Strike-thru', a second click on the toolbar S enters the 'Cancel Strike-thru'. (Same is true for 'Bold' [ B])Para no. 1

[ S]Para no. 2a

para no. 3

Para no. 4

EDIT: after getting clothes out of dryer and re-reading this, maybe I addressed a different problem than you had. Oh well.

 

[collinsmark]

The first click on the S in the toolbar inserts the codes for 'Strike-thru'. the second click inserts 'Cancel Strike-thru'.

Here is an example with an extra space in the 'Strike-thru' code so it is not recognized.
[ S] <cursor is here>...
and you type stuff...
Now click S again, and code 'Cancel Strike-thru' ,[ /S] is inserted.

Just remember, when you are finished entering text that needs a 'Strike-thru', a second click on the toolbar S enters the 'Cancel Strike-thru'. (Same is true for 'Bold' [ B])Para no. 1

[ S]Para no. 2a

para no. 3

Para no. 4

Well, sure, that works well if you know ahead of time the typos and errors that you're going to make when you write your post, before you actually post it.

But most of the time, one either (a) corrects the errors in the proof-reading process before posting, or (b) corrects them later by editing the post.

And in the case of (b), it's often courteous to use the strike-through on erroneous, existing text, optionally to be replaced by regular text, to show the reader what part of the original post was erroneous (and then make a note at the bottom of the post that edits were made). To do this, one highlights the erroneous text and hits the strike-through button. While this works if everything is in a single paragraph, it does not necessarily work as intended if there are multiple paragraphs, which is why I wanted to report this as a bug.

 

[mfb]

The first click on the S in the toolbar inserts the codes for 'Strike-thru'. the second click inserts 'Cancel Strike-thru'.

That is clearly not the expected behavior if users mark highlight text and then click on the strikethrough button. But for me it adds the tags properly.
New paragraph

Anyway, if in doubt use the bb code editor.

 

[collinsmark]

Try that again with a blank line between "...properly." and "New Paragraph"

Is this your intended result?

---------------------------------------------------------
That is clearly not the expected behavior if users mark highlight text and then click on the strikethrough button. But for me it adds the tags properly.

New paragraph

 

[Tom.G]

Para no. 1

Para no. 2 with 'this stuff to strike on edit.' 'this added to Para 2 on edit'

Para no. 3 with 'this added to Para 2 on edit.'

Para no 4 with the following phrase originally entered to test a potential string match bug: 'this added to Para 2 on edit.'

Yup, a buggy critter crawlin' around in there!

Whoa! A screen refresh while editing (triggered by @collinsmark post) and it shows differently now. And the S from the toolbar does not work; it worked during initial editing.

That's something to keep the webmaster awake for a while.

 

[collinsmark]

Para no. 1

Para no. 2 with 'this stuff to strike on edit.'

Para no. 3 with 'this added to Para 2 on edit.'

Para no 4 with the following phrase originally entered to test a potential string match bug: 'this added to Para 2 on edit.'

I think you might have neglected to strike any text on edit. I don't see any strike-through text.

 

[Tom.G]

I think you might have neglected to strike any text on edit. I don't see any strike-through text.

You were quicker than I was. Editing was in process when you posted. Have a look now, results are even more confusing.

 

[mfb]

Try that again with a blank line between "...properly." and "New Paragraph"

Okay, with an additional line I can reproduce it. In fact: It doesn't matter if that line is blank or not. It will strike through what you highlight, and then everything starting two lines below that line. What a weird result.

 

[OCR]

What a weird result.

It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .It's been that way for a long time. . .None of this should have been struck out. . . except the very first line.

 

[OCR]

 

[Tom.G]

It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .It's been that way for a long time. . .None of this should have been struck out. . . except the very first line.

If you put @OCR s post in Reply editor, and Toggle BB code to Off with the Gear icon, you will see that the 'Cancel Strike-Thru' is at the end of the post, not at the end of the first line as intended/expected.

 

[OCR]

Seems to be the case. . .

 

[OCR]

It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .
It's been that way for a long time. . .It's been that way for a long time. . .None of this should have been struck out. . . except the very first line.

 

[OCR]

See what I did ?

 

[BillTre]

I have seem the same effect on following paragraphs after making some text different, in my case either a few words bolded or made into a link to a reference.
Since I tend to type a lot and then go back and add links or formatting, it can get tedious to deal with.

 

[OCR]

So have I. . .

I have seem the same effect on following paragraphs after making some text different, in my case either a few words bolded or made into a link to a reference.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...gate-to-later-paragraphs.977643/#post-6236238
Here's an example of link propagation. . .

 

[OCR]

It looks like this if you Toggle BB code off.

Interesting. . .

 

[BillTre]

It seems to be better for me now.
Maybe @Greg Bernhardt has already done something?

 

[collinsmark]

It seems to be better for me now.
Maybe @Greg Bernhardt has already done something?

The bug still exists for me.

I can also confirm what @mfb discovered that a blank line isn't necessary -- the bug manifests itself two lines below the line with selected text.

Testing line 1
Testing "Stuff that will be underlined, crossed out, or whatever" line 2
Testing line 3, should not be modified.
Testing line 4, should not be modified.
Testing line 5, should not be modified.

 

[OCR]

The bug still exists for me.

I can also confirm what @mfb discovered that a blank line isn't necessary -- the bug manifests itself two lines below the line with selected text.

Testing line 1
Testing "Stuff that will be underlined, crossed out, or whatever" line 2
Testing line 3, should not be modified.
Testing line 4, should not be modified.
Testing line 5, should not be modified.

The bug still exists for me.

I can also confirm what @mfb discovered that a blank line isn't necessary -- the bug manifests itself two lines below the line with selected text.

Testing line 1
Testing "Stuff that will be underlined, crossed out, or whatever" line 2
Testing line 3, should not be modified.
Testing line 4, should not be modified.
Testing line 5, should not be modified.

Looks like the only way to fix it, is Toggle BB code off and remove the tags. . . ?

.

 

[OCR]

Screen shot showing code tags that need to be removed. . .

 

[collinsmark]

Yes, it's easy to fix using the BB code editor. So it's not a big deal for me, personally.

What I worry about though is the student, possibly a newcomer to PF, -- a student who knows nothing about a "BB code editor" -- who tries to edit his or her post while proof-reading, and then out of shear frustration of not being able to form a coherent post, gives up and instead posts his or her question to some other forum on the Internet.

 

[mfb]

I have seem the same effect on following paragraphs after making some text different, in my case either a few words bolded or made into a link to a reference.
Since I tend to type a lot and then go back and add links or formatting, it can get tedious to deal with.

Use the code editor? Way more control over the text and no weird bugs.

@collinsmark: If someone is unable to remove the formatting from later paragraphs then they have more serious problems than physics questions.

 

[collinsmark]

@collinsmark: If someone is unable to remove the formatting from later paragraphs then they have more serious problems than physics questions.

I know it's easy to fix. And it's not that big of deal, particularly if you know that the bug exists and to expect it.

But still, I can just see some kid with a strict homework deadline, and who follows all the forum rules, uses the given homework template, and even is conscientious enough to be clear and concise by underlining a parituclar, important term near the beginning of his post -- a post that took him 20 minutes to carefully type in and write up -- only to find that nearly every single word in his entire post is now mysteriously underlined. That sort of thing can drive a student bat-poop crazy.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

hmmm, it seems I've never explicitly used the BB Code editor, but I have this bug afflicting my posts and I find it quite annoying.

And I agree completely that bugs like this function as "entry barriers" to new users. Certain entry barriers are useful (e.g. to keep out crackpottery), but this one is tedium with no offsetting benefits.

 

[berkeman]

Try some testing...

$$i(t) = C {\frac{dv(t)}{dt}}$$

end testing...

@collinsmark: If someone is unable to remove the formatting from later paragraphs then they have more serious problems than physics questions.

I think a bigger problem comes in if you have used a few types of formatting in the body of a post -- it gets harder to keep clearing formatting and restoring the ones you want. I guess you have to be sure to go top-down in the edits...

 

[OCR]

I think a bigger problem comes in if you have used a few types of formatting in the body of a post --

Yeah, probabʅʎ. . .

Try some testing...

$$i(t) = C {\frac{dv(t)}{dt}}$$

end testing...

I think a bigger problem comes in if you have used a few types of formatting in the body of a post -- it gets harder to keep clearing formatting and restoring the ones you want. I guess you have to be sure to go ^top-_down in∞

the edits...

Lol. . . sorry.

 

[OCR]

Lol. . . screen shot of that with BB code off.

 

[berkeman]

If someone is unable to remove the formatting from later paragraphs then they have more serious problems than physics questions.

Not unable to do it, but having to do it makes me less likely to post at the PF.

Is there an RFE in the works to get this fixed @Greg Bernhardt ?

PF AI Translation gives:

"I do understand that every signal will close electrical Southern California by the movement of the magnet, and I am going to use the simple binary packet protocol of computers."

I don't understand the Southern California reference, but whatever. Computers use synchronous signalling where a clock accompanies the data. So you will have to say how you plan to send the clock signal with your magnets in addition to the data signal. Will you use two Tx magnets and two Rx magnets to send the data and clock?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is there an RFE in the works to get this fixed @Greg Bernhardt ?

yes, I haven't yet updated because I am waiting on something else to be fixed because the upgrade will break something else. #adminlife