Pet Lookups - Stylesheets

[Xalaxracer]

Cleaner Code, Better Browsing and A Safer Neopia!

All HTML and Stylesheet must be recognized as safe by our filter and all code must be properly formatted. This will protect you and your Neopets from deranged code Mynci. You will receive an error notice if the Filter finds a problem, otherwise it simply accepts it. Learn more about the hows and the whys here.
Betatest Code Check

* Setting this option checks all the words inside your html or stylesheets to make sure we know those words. Yes, check my code please:
* When this moves out of betatesting, it will not be optional.

Found it when editing my pets lookups. Its good they're doing this to scan all style sheets and stuff No more cgs hopefully ..

[Dustin]

Cleaner Code, Better Browsing and A Safer Neopia!

All HTML and Stylesheet must be recognized as safe by our filter and all code must be properly formatted. This will protect you and your Neopets from deranged code Mynci. You will receive an error notice if the Filter finds a problem, otherwise it simply accepts it. Learn more about the hows and the whys here.
Betatest Code Check

* Setting this option checks all the words inside your html or stylesheets to make sure we know those words. Yes, check my code please:
* When this moves out of betatesting, it will not be optional.

Found it when editing my pets lookups. Its good they're doing this to scan all style sheets and stuff No more cgs hopefully ..

Same thing for when you update your lookup.

[Q]

Let the insanity begin...the neoboards are going to be insane for awhile.

betatester announced to premium earlier today that they would be releasing it soon. They seem to have gotten most of the kinks worked out, but if you run into one it's really easy just to send in a report and they'll add bits of code you need (if they're legit).

I don't know if non premiums can see this yet, but they have built a help center for it. The only problem with it is that most people aren't going to read all of it XD

http://www.neopets.com/help/code/index.phtml

[everconfused]

Q, you beat me to the help page

I am glad that they are releasing this to everyone now. Premium has been beta testing it for awhile, it started with our galleries, then shops, then lookups, petpages and pet descriptions.

The only thing I have a small issue with is releasing this on a Friday. Why does TNT release things on Fridays? Otherwise, I am thrilled with the checker.

It can be annoying and confusing, but if you take a deep breath, look at the errors found or invalid words, whatever it is telling you is wrong, then go back and look at your coding, there is a good chance you will find what the problem is.

And it is to try to help us all - have proper coding AND get rid of the bad eggs and their cg'ers, shop overlays that cost people thousands for junk, autobuying items when following a link in a post, things like that. A staff person posted on the charter board a few days ago (someone was complaining) that it is either having this code check or no user edited pages.

[Q]

I heard a rumor they were refusing to filter out polls and multitudes of glitter images from shops! *points out that this was an attempt at humor*

They haven't taken off the checkbox yet, I'm guessing they'll leave it on for a few days so people can get used to it. Bit like when you put your new goldfish in his bag in his new home for awhile before releasing him

Last edited by Q on Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Officer 1BDI]

I'm not sure it's possible to filter out glitter images from other images.

I'm encouraged by this news. I hope it will keep the CG'ers at bay....

[c_shanholtzer]

I just show my displeasure by refusing to buy from annoying shops:P

[dolphinling]

Is it just me, or does this not do anything for non-premium yet? I've tested a bunch of things and it seems to be acting just the way it always did, checkbox checked or not.

If I understand what it is I think they're doing, though.. Gah. It's better than what they used to have—a lot better than what they used to have—but still not perfect.

[everconfused]

Is it just me, or does this not do anything for non-premium yet? I've tested a bunch of things and it seems to be acting just the way it always did, checkbox checked or not.

If I understand what it is I think they're doing, though.. Gah. It's better than what they used to have—a lot better than what they used to have—but still not perfect.

I have not tried using this on my unpremium spare (I really need to log in there and feed my pets!), so I don't know if it's not doing anything or if your coding is good *shrug*.

If what you think they're doing is trying to filter "bad" stuff and basically putting the responsibility on us, the players, then that is kind of what it is. No, it's not perfect - better, but not perfect. Don't think perfection is possible, is it? I do think the programmers should be going through the site and finding the holes that allow this stuff in the first place and fix them. And have this coding "pass" method.

I for one actually hope they don't allow music anymore. I know it was banned for awhile, then people found a code that worked around the filters for it. Don't like music, makes pages take way long to load or even freeze the browser and if I have my speakers on, it's like sometimes.

[dolphinling]

Is it just me, or does this not do anything for non-premium yet? I've tested a bunch of things and it seems to be acting just the way it always did, checkbox checked or not.

If I understand what it is I think they're doing, though.. Gah. It's better than what they used to have—a lot better than what they used to have—but still not perfect.

I have not tried using this on my unpremium spare (I really need to log in there and feed my pets!), so I don't know if it's not doing anything or if your coding is good *shrug*.

If you get a chance, would you mind testing? I know my coding is good, but I was intentionally making it bad to test, and it still didn't filter it.

If what you think they're doing is trying to filter "bad" stuff and basically putting the responsibility on us, the players, then that is kind of what it is. No, it's not perfect - better, but not perfect. Don't think perfection is possible, is it? I do think the programmers should be going through the site and finding the holes that allow this stuff in the first place and fix them. And have this coding "pass" method.

Actually, filtering out bad stuff is what they used to do, and is why there were so many holes—it just doesn't work. What they're doing now is the exact opposite: filtering in good stuff, and throwing everything else out.

That's much safer, because if there's something new you don't know about, it's automatically filtered away until you decide if it's safe or not. The only thing I'm concerned about is the specific way they're doing it. It is possible to do it perfectly—in fact, it's possible to do it perfectly in a number of different ways, but some ways are more bug prone and a really clever hacker* might be able to exploit one unless they're careful, whereas other ways are much less likely to get bugs.

* By "really clever" I mean black-box testing a system to find a problem in the way it outputs things that can be exploited, not oops, here's a hole in the filter.

I for one actually hope they don't allow music anymore. I know it was banned for awhile, then people found a code that worked around the filters for it. Don't like music, makes pages take way long to load or even freeze the browser and if I have my speakers on, it's like sometimes.

Sound/music can be put in a page in three ways: <object>, which is the HTML standard way of doing it, <embed>, which is an old non-standard way of doing it, which basically identical to object except for syntax, and <bgsound>, which is a non-standard, IE-only way, which only works for sound.

Neopets never allowed <object>. <bgsound> is, as far as I know, still allowed. <embed> used to be allowed, and they would only allow you to link to files ending in .mid, .midi, or .mp3 so that you could only put sound in there and not, e.g., flash or javascript*. The problem, as I showed them, is that you can name a file one way and have it be something else, so checking the filename doesn't work.

In fact, it's pretty much impossible for them to know ahead of time what kind of file is in an <embed>, so they have to disallow it completely.

* It's not possible to use javascript directly through an <embed>, but you can set it up to work through something else.

Also, don't ask why they allowed <embed> and not <object> even though they're functionally identical... I have no idea.