Empty <li> tagsets in source under rc5

[vkaryl]

I hesitate to label this a "bug" since the w3c validator doesn't choke on it (at least not at the moment), but it is rather "ugly" coding, and might be something for the "not-programming-challenged" to track down before version 1:

When you view source on the index page, if you have subcats in your index there will be some "empty" tagsets at the end of the subcat listing. It causes no problems with the index page display so it's not an emergency, but cleaning it up might be good....

[Edit: just checked, and this is true of rc4 as well....]

[Ap0s7le]

I don't have any list tags in my install of RC4 or 5.

Can I see where you speak of?

Thanks

-Casey

[vkaryl]

Well, source for your test directory has tagsets, as well as <ul> tagsets, but no empties....

http://reallyrelevantresults.bytehaven.com/ - if you view source, you'll see various empties in the subcat areas. It's hard to see because the **censored****censored****censored****censored** source is all mungled up together for some reason I have yet to be able to sort out.

For instance, here's one of the relevant ul's:

<ul class="catlinks"> <h2>AnotherWorld (Other_Worlds/) <span class="count">(1)</span></h2><p class="subcats"></p> <h2>Gamer'sWorld (Games/) <span class="count">(1)</span></h2><p class="subcats"></p> [/list]

with the empty tagset in red. Looking through the rest of the soup in the source will show you others - if you don't go blind first.

Thanks.

[Ap0s7le]

That's my test directory, it has many things the normal ones don't.

When I refer to my installs, I mean the ones I've installed lately using the downloads from here. Thus the list aren't supported yet, so you'll need to talk with the author of the mod you're using.

I only support the current versions and the staff mods.

If you would like me to look into your problem I would charge for my time.

I'm sure you understand, thank you for yours.

-Casey

[vkaryl]

*rolls eyes* I'm not using any mods. There's no reason to talk to a mod author, since the only thing I have installed is rc5 (which I guess is the "current version" - though rc4 does this as well), which was why I am talking to YOU - being's how it's YOUR program.

*shrug* As long as the validator doesn't choke on it, I won't worry about it. However, YOU should, since it's YOUR program, and it seems apparent that it's IN the program coding. I was simply bringing it to your attention as a potential fix-it needed before you release "finished code", though as I said earlier I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bug.

[Ap0s7le]

Hello again, please view source on these installs.
http://www.phplinkdirectory.com/demo/
http://www.addurl-free.com/
http://www.animepub.com/directory/
http://www.businessplexus.com/
http://www.candyfloss.org/

You'll notice no <ul> nor , that's because we use tables.

I notice there are no tables in the link you gave me, why is that?
Maybe you modified the scripts? Maybe you're following something "kickass" did?

Thank you for your time.

-Casey

[vkaryl]

Thanks. I'll figure it out and let you know where the problem was, in case you decide to include information about tableless design in your release version.

[kickass]

Why are you so quick to point to my work as the possible problem, Casey? I bet you fifty bucks the problem isn't caused by any of MY modifications.

[David]

Let's focus on the problem at hand. I'm in no way taking sides here, just want to help them. Can someone post the code in question?

[Ap0s7le]

Actually I wasn't, and didn't intend for it to sound that way.

I remember him talking in that thread, and figured he modified it along the lines you did trying to get the same results. Thus, the ul and li. Because we don't use them as you know "kickass", so to say it was with RC4 and 5, that just cannot be true thus whoever either had him change it or changed it for him is responsible for fixing it.

I know I would if it was my doing.

Who is it? I don't care. Not my concern.

Sorry that you took it that way "kickass", I do hope no offense will be taken once you've read this.

*movie quote*
"and that's all I've got to say bout that"

later

-Casey

[kickass]

"I remember him talking in that thread, and figured he modified it along the lines you did trying to get the same results. Thus, the ul and li. Because we don't use them as you know "kickass", so to say it was with RC4 and 5, that just cannot be true thus whoever either had him change it or changed it for him is responsible for fixing it."

So yeah, Casey, you didn't even look at the code to see if there was another reason for it. You just saw the ul and li and figured it couldn't possibly have anything to do with anything in the original template code. Too bad David stepped in before you took that bet. :lol:

David, vkaryl has found a solution to this situation elsewhere since she wasn't getting any sort of satisfaction via this thread. With help, she put together the solution yesterday before you even requested code to look at. She'll be posting the fix in a new thread later today, after she's written it up. And she did a bang-up job of finding the answer, especially considering she has very little php experience . . .