scootstah

Oh, sweet. You could also use my GreaseMonkey script.

That's not really what constants are for. You are relying on the fact that a variable will exist prior to setting the constant. A variable which comes from the user, and is only set under certain circumstances. Why not, then, just use a variable in place of the constant?

[L,R=301] See the L? That is a flag saying that this is the last RewriteRule that is going to happen, so ignore any other rules below it. You need to either take that out, or move your other rule up.

You have the "L" flag in the HTTPS rewrite, which means "Last". Any subsequent RewriteRule's will be ignored.

Ah okay, so using the AUTO_INCREMENT column on the comment. Eh, I think using a date would be better.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that not every framework is as "feature rich" as Symfony. But, for the most part, there is still going to be a lot of bloat and unnecessary (to the project) things when using a framework.

Try changing it to https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=www.mysite.com

Zend is big, and is a perfectly viable and capable framework. I think those are both poor options. Yes, you have to consider it, but it's not a huge deal, unless you want to seek out jobs for only that specific platform. What you should be looking for is a framework that best fits the needs of the current project. You might find that you use the same framework a lot, and that's fine. But, sometimes you might find a different framework that does something a little different or better. A framework is essentially a toolbox full of tools. Most frameworks have wrenches, and screwdrivers...but sometimes a specialty tool is what you need.

Where is the logic here? Why is 7 first?

Yeah, I'm fine with the buttons (even though I don't use them). But it's a pain in the ass to edit a link or something once it has been "rich-text-ified".

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. When it comes to frameworks, there is no be-all end-all "best" solution. No one framework is the right choice every time.

A definitive answer depends on your database structure. For example, how are you determining what the "first" comment is? You would likely use a COUNT() and group by the user ID. But, again, it depends on your database structure and how the "first" comment is determined.

Yea, I hate the WYSIWYG as well.

For any other lazy members, I have created a quick and dirty GreaseMonkey script for Firefox users. You will need the GreaseMonkey addon for Firefox. 1. Install the GreaseMonkey Addon 2. Download the script, save this code to a new file named whatever.user.js. The ".user.js" at the end is important. 3. Open the newly saved file with Firefox. GreaseMonkey should pop up a dialog box, this is where you install the script. 4. Once the script is installed, go to (Firefox) Tools > GreaseMonkey and make sure that the script is enabled. You should now see a little drop down arrow to the right of "View New Content", which will expand into a small menu when clicked.

Comment out: header ("Content-type: image/png"); ImagePng ($im); and remove the @ from ImageCreate(). Do you see any errors now?

As the error occurs at column 1, it is most likely a Byte Order Mark issue. A Byte Order Mark is a hidden character that is inserted at the beginning of the text stream when using a Unicode encoding. Some possible solutions is to turn off BOM (Byte Order Mark) in your editor, or save the files with a different encoding such as ANSI.

Damn, that was fast. Nice work Philip (and any others involved)!

You make this out to be a much bigger problem than it really is. Click Tools, Options, Advanced, Updates, tick "Check for updates but let me install them". Viola, you will never have that problem again. I doubt like hell that the vast majority of IE7 or 8 users have this problem. All I am saying is Microsoft should auto-update by default, and allow users to opt out.

Which is exactly why IE needs a better update model. Okay, it "notifies" the user that there is an update. Clearly, though, that is not good enough. Sure, you don't like the idea of forcing a user to upgrade. But, is there some benefit that I'm failing to see to using an outdated browser that can't render websites properly? Otherwise, why else would people keep doing it? Why? Because they don't know any better. This is a problem, and it needs a solution. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has suddenly turned their ways and is going to start adhering to W3C specifications and such. If they only push a major update every couple years, they're always going to be behind the game, and their users are always going to be stuck behind on outdated versions. In my mind, that is the opposite of caring about your customers. It's like letting 30% of your customers drive around in golf carts when you could shove them out of the seat and into a Lamborghini with the flick of a finger.

Use absolute paths, not relative paths.

Examples of how this is true? Because the general population of IE users will always be years behind the users of other browsers which are updated more frequently. Firefox and Chrome push major versions several times per year. IE pushes major versions every what, year? Two years? So anything that happens to come about during that time span which isn't supported will have to wait until the next version of IE, which may or may not implement it. On top of that, users who do not manually update will be waiting many years until they either: A. Update IE, B. Choose a different browser, or C. Buy a new computer which includes a more up-to-date operating system/browser.

Without automatic updates, IE will never be comparable to other modern browsers. The web evolves quickly. If you want support for the latest and greatest, you need to be using the latest and greatest. If you enjoy spending a considerable amount of time making sure that your applications work with an old, decrepit, legacy browser then so be it. I would prefer to work with cool new technologies. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, but that's exactly what the average consumer needs. You are a power user, you can make a conscious decision whether or not you want to upgrade, and you understand the repercussions of each. Someone like my grandmother doesn't know, or care, about updating their browser. She doesn't understand that the website is all fucked up because she's (unknowingly) using a 5 year old browser. I suspect the large majority of people still using IE7 or 8 are in this boat. And while that is not directly Microsoft's fault, Microsoft does have control over it. They could automatically update the browser. They silently update other aspects of Windows with Windows Updates why not the browser? Hell, they could make a "special" version that doesn't even change the appearance of the browser and keeps all settings intact, but under the hood, it is updated.

Perhaps force was not the right word. But, seamless, automatic updates would be a huge benefit no less. Sure, have the option to disable it if you want. But, by default, it should update automatically. Your average consumer that is still using IE7 or 8 obviously doesn't understand that they need to update their browser. Making IE auto-update would solve a lot of problems. In fact, dropping in a Windows update that automatically updated old versions of IE would be pretty slick as well. Bump everyone that updates Windows up to the latest version of IE.

I agree, but at what point do you stop supporting an IE version? IE could push out more updates if they removed it from the core of the OS and made it an install like Chrome/Firefox that would allow it to keep it up with other browsers better. Just my opinion. If you had to specifically download IE to use it, nobody would use it. People use IE because they are either too lazy to use something else, or they don't know anything else exists.