Off Topic > Tech Support

Youtube tag does only work for http protocol, not https

(1/1)

12oh2alarm:
When using the "Youtube" icon, only URLs specified as http://something will result in a youtube movie window. URLs starting with https for secure communication are rendered as just the URL. This should be fixed, considering that more and more services start using https by default.
It's probably some regular expression or string comparison in the BB software that needs to be slightly adjusted.

How to reproduce:
http:

https:

smartcooky:

--- Quote from: 12oh2alarm on July 26, 2015, 04:55:21 PM ---When using the "Youtube" icon, only URLs specified as http://something will result in a youtube movie window. URLs starting with https for secure communication are rendered as just the URL. This should be fixed, considering that more and more services start using https by default.
It's probably some regular expression or string comparison in the BB software that needs to be slightly adjusted.

How to reproduce:
http:

https:


--- End quote ---


Just  edit out the "s"

12oh2alarm:

--- Quote from: smartcooky on July 26, 2015, 06:09:41 PM ---Just  edit out the "s"

--- End quote ---

I know. I did. I shouldn't have to.  It caused me considerable teeth-gnawing when I found out. :)
Hence this "bug report" (or feature request).

Abaddon:

--- Quote from: 12oh2alarm on July 26, 2015, 06:24:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: smartcooky on July 26, 2015, 06:09:41 PM ---Just  edit out the "s"

--- End quote ---

I know. I did. I shouldn't have to.  It caused me considerable teeth-gnawing when I found out. :)
Hence this "bug report" (or feature request).


--- End quote ---
I think this is a "feature" of SMF. I have dabbled, but not run an active SMF board previously. Chuck the extraneous "s" seems the appropriate action. Clicking on a wooboob video does not require SSL encryption, nor reveals any extra personal data should you do so.

LO could modify the SMF code to do so if you wished, but it would likely invalidate any guarantees/service agreements/licences. Not a good thing.

Be under no illusion. LO runs this at his own personal expense simply because he considers it a worthwhile thing to do. If that requires some compromise, so be it. If on the other hand you require some strange customised version, then that can also be accommodated, but you will have to pay for that. No reputable hosting service will allow a spurious version of any software on their network unless it is scrupulously tested and verified, and even then, it will cost you extra. I know this because right now, once again, I must demonstrate to our hosting provider that my latest project will not compromise their network integrity. You accept the defaults or you pay a bucket of cost. That's just how the world works.

LunarOrbit:
Sorry, I must've missed this thread.

I'm aware of the problem with the YouTube tag, and I might be able to fix it myself. Normally I wouldn't make changes to a plugin, but since the developer has not updated it themselves in years I can assume it is abandoned. I'll see what I can do.

Navigation

[0] Message Index