Is there an easy way to turn off URL validation in Drigg? Every once in a while it doesn't work for perfectly valid links. I'd rather have no validation at all instead of spotty, inconsistent validation that frustrates my users.
I filed the request. No, we don't want invalid links, but I would rather trust my users to get them right than to force them into this frustrating problem.
Is the user-agent being properly set before the URL is requested? Some servers won't accept any requests if there is no user agent set. Maybe that's the problem since anything at news.cnet.com doesn't want to work.
Dude. I gotta say, that doesn't make any sense. You're running a small open source project and you expect CNET to make changes to their site to accommodate your code?
We all know how much work you put into this project and how much effort goes into supporting it. And we're all testing and working with the code and posting to this forum to help make it better. I think I read somewhere that an upcoming release is going to let us turn off validation, right? Hallelujah. Making Drigg work only for sites that strictly follow formal standards is crippling. It just had to be said.
No, bending over to non-compliant sites, big or small, is crippling.
I am not writing a small free software project. I am writing standard-compliant software.
The next upcoming version of Drigg will allow turning off ov validation, and it will relax a bit the validation mechanism (although it will still be standard-compliant).
I understand that it might be a lot more work, but if Drigg won't process otherwise-visitable URLs because they don't meet a specific standard, then it's not something I could show to end users. If someone can go to the link, then it works, regardless of what server settings it has.
Relaxing the validation sounds promising. I'm playing with the current dev release at the moment and just found the checkbox to turn off URL validation. I am a happy camper.
I agree that validating links is for the best. But the hard part is doing it in a way that doesn't destroy the user experience. If someone punches in a visitable link, but drigg says it doesn't validate, then they're going to hit the road and not come back again anytime soon.
I completely agree. I'd
I completely agree. I'd like to turn this off too but haven't found where it is in the code.
I posted details about my problems with this here:
http://www.drigg-code.org/node/423
No current way...
Hi,
There is no current way of disabling the URL validation.
I didn't think anybody would want invalid links in their sites...
Please file a feature request in the drigg section of drupal.org
Bye!
Merc.
I filed the request. No, we
I filed the request. No, we don't want invalid links, but I would rather trust my users to get them right than to force them into this frustrating problem.
I agree, it is frustrating.
I agree, it is frustrating. It looks like anything from news.cnet.com won't work.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10004226-92.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10002150-92.html
Is the user-agent being properly set before the URL is requested? Some servers won't accept any requests if there is no user agent set. Maybe that's the problem since anything at news.cnet.com doesn't want to work.
ini_set('user_agent', 'Your-User-Agent-Here');
Cnet...
Hi,
Maybe you should write to CNET and tell them that they should follow the RFCs and the Internet standards we are all based on.
I won't change a single line of Drigg to accommodate people who don't follow standards.
Merc.
Merc, Dude. I gotta say,
Merc,
Dude. I gotta say, that doesn't make any sense. You're running a small open source project and you expect CNET to make changes to their site to accommodate your code?
We all know how much work you put into this project and how much effort goes into supporting it. And we're all testing and working with the code and posting to this forum to help make it better. I think I read somewhere that an upcoming release is going to let us turn off validation, right? Hallelujah. Making Drigg work only for sites that strictly follow formal standards is crippling. It just had to be said.
No, bending over is crippling
Hi,
No, bending over to non-compliant sites, big or small, is crippling.
I am not writing a small free software project. I am writing standard-compliant software.
The next upcoming version of Drigg will allow turning off ov validation, and it will relax a bit the validation mechanism (although it will still be standard-compliant).
Bye,
Merc.
Relaxing it sounds
I understand that it might be a lot more work, but if Drigg won't process otherwise-visitable URLs because they don't meet a specific standard, then it's not something I could show to end users. If someone can go to the link, then it works, regardless of what server settings it has.
Relaxing the validation sounds promising. I'm playing with the current dev release at the moment and just found the checkbox to turn off URL validation. I am a happy camper.
I agree that validating links is for the best. But the hard part is doing it in a way that doesn't destroy the user experience. If someone punches in a visitable link, but drigg says it doesn't validate, then they're going to hit the road and not come back again anytime soon.
Thanks for all your work.
I stand by what I wrote above...
Hi,
I stand by what I said above. I agree on the user experience. However, it's not me ruining it -- it's people using non-compliant servers.
If anything, NOT accepting the URLs and having a black list of known broken URLs (with contact information) would probably help.
However, it's not high in my priority list.
Merc.
Yahoo news also doesent
Yahoo news also doesn't validate :(
There has to be a work around....
Could some one share what file in the dev version i can upload that will give me the check box to turn off the url validation?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13096;_ylt=Aj1ts4g...
Thanks
Not yet
Hi,
The new version of Drigg, coming out VERY soon, will have the possibility to disable URL validation.
Bye!
Merc.
When the new version is out
I am interested when the new version is out too. There are some big sites but get this problem.
The version of 9th september
The version of 9th september has this box