# Spoilers gone



## mjr (29 Sep 2019)

Spoilers are now missing from posts instead of covered in black until pointed at. Can previous style be restored, please?


----------



## ColinJ (29 Sep 2019)

Spoiler: Looks OK to me... 



Test spoiler


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2019)

I can only see that by clicking reply and reading the quote.

I wonder if this is another feature that used to work well that has gone javascript-mugs-only.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Sep 2019)

mjr said:


> I wonder if this is another feature that used to work well that has gone javascript-mugs-only.


Probably, we will tag @Shaun for clarification.
One needs to keep up with internet standards.
Java scripts have been around for a long time, you can't keep them switched off forever!


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2019)

mjr said:


> Spoilers are now missing from posts instead of covered in black until pointed at. Can previous style be restored, please?


It may be the current style(on this upgrade).


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2019)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Probably, we will tag @Shaun for clarification.
> One needs to keep up with internet standards.
> Java scripts have been around for a long time, you can't keep them switched off forever!


No, but they are only permitted for sites that need them, for tasks that need them. Forums don't need them for simple viewing and posting. It is not reasonable to expect all visitors to run their browsers in "trousers down" mode so much and irresponsible to encourage it by withdrawing basic features.


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2019)

As for internet standards, CSS alone can do most of these features more efficiently.


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2019)

mjr said:


> No, but they are only permitted for sites that need them, for tasks that need them. Forums don't need them for simple viewing and posting. It is not reasonable to expect all visitors to run their browsers in "trousers down" mode so much and irresponsible to encourage it by withdrawing basic features.


Given the work done, Shaun did a fair old job in the time given.

Along with that, he offered a viable work round some of the problems you're having. That being to turn javascript back on. It seems you're bringing some of these on yourself, yet blaming someone else for your problems.

You used to run an adblocker, does that no longer work.


----------



## winjim (29 Sep 2019)

The spoilers seem to have become a bit prettier since the upgrade.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2019)

classic33 said:


> Given the work done, Shaun did a fair old job in the time given.
> 
> Along with that, he offered a viable work round some of the problems you're having. That being to turn javascript back on. It seems you're bringing some of these on yourself, yet blaming someone else for your problems.
> 
> You used to run an adblocker, does that no longer work.


I don't disagree that it's a fair old job. It's an upgrade. It just has a few bugs in it, which are probably from XenForo not Shaun. It'd be nice to knock them out.

I disagree that permitting javascript is a viable workaround. It seems like a very bad idea to try to cure website bugs by giving that website permission to control and affect the browser more - if it has buggy basic html and css, who knows what other bugs are in its scripts? I am running perfectly reasonable and justifiable security policies and it's up to you if you don't. Surely it's not reasonable to argue that a forum - basically web forms that are mostly text boxes, but also a high proportion of user-contributed content - should require browsers to be run with low security?

I didn't "used to run an adblocker". I have installed them from time to time to help people verify problems, but I prefer to restrict javascript execution permissions as a more general solution, because it's not only ads which spread malware, plus it helps conserve battery. Actually, well-behaved ads are fine by me (ones which don't move around or try to hijack clicks or try to mimic user interface elements and so on). Google ads are not.



winjim said:


> The spoilers seem to have become a bit prettier since the upgrade.


That basically works for me (I can highlight the text to defuzzy it) but it's a different tag (ispoiler not spoiler). There's a lot of stuff on this site already using the ordinary spoiler tag, so it would be nice for it to work again.


----------



## Slick (30 Sep 2019)

Just experimenting.


----------



## Slick (30 Sep 2019)

Lol


----------



## Pat "5mph" (30 Sep 2019)

Slick said:


> Lol


The experiment has failed, I can't see anything, apart from a broken ticket factory link and a mistake in your signature


----------



## Slick (30 Sep 2019)

Pat "5mph" said:


> The experiment has failed, I can't see anything, apart from a broken ticket factory link and a mistake in your signature


So there is.


----------



## Slick (30 Sep 2019)

Pat "5mph" said:


> The experiment has failed, I can't see anything, apart from a broken ticket factory link and a mistake in your signature


Sorted the signature, but everything else can stand.


----------

