HTML-v5 & CSS-v4

[Fledermaus]

This message is directed to those within GC and /or others who are familiar with HTML and CSS.

Over the last decade or so, I have become self-educated with regards to HTML and CSS, more the former than the latter.

However and in recent times, I have been updating my HTML and CSS skills.

What I would like to know is how complete is GC's implementation HTML-v5 and CSS-v4.

And of particular importance, what codes does GC allow and/or does not allow at the present time?

/\/(*W*)\/\

Edited March 21, 2023 by Fledermaus

[+niraD]

41 minutes ago, Fledermaus said:

And of particular importance, what codes does GC allow and/or does not allow at the present time?

The only document I'm aware of is the Help Center article HTML in cache pages. I don't know how current the information in that document is though.

 

But to some degree, you're asking the wrong question. The HTML/CSS allowed by Groundspeak matters some, but what matters more is the HTML/CSS supported by the devices/apps used by those who might seek your cache. I strongly recommend the KISS approach. If you must tart up the page, then I recommend putting any essential information that seekers will need at the front in simple text, where it should be accessible even when the rest of the fancy page is unusable.

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, Fledermaus said:

What I would like to know is how complete is GC's implementation HTML-v5 and CSS-v4.

And of particular importance, what codes does GC allow and/or does not allow at the present time?

/\/(*W*)\/\

 

GC does not "implement" either.  Your browser implements those things.  GC filters the html/css to remove "bad" functionality, and that filtering is spotty and inconsistent.  In general, the filtering seems to be driven the the lawyers, and anything that works now because it has not been noticed is not likely to continue to be allowed long-term.  For instance, the current filtering of backgrounds in tables allows use of non-transcoded images from outside the geocaching domain (or at least it did last week) but I doubt that will last long.

 

If you want to do something tricky, my recommendation is that you set up your own web server and serve the pages from that, getting permission from your reviewer with a complete description of how the external site works.  Even then I would not think it likely to be approved if you are doing html or CSS tricks.

Edited March 22, 2023 by fizzymagic

[Fledermaus]

Perhaps I used the term "implementation" inappropriately. What I should have stated is the fact that in the past I have noticed certain HTML/CSS codes being rejected by the "input" box.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that when I encode a message or data into an image, the data seems to be stripped away. WHY? Does this also occur with "meta" data?

 

Also, when I upload an image and/or a page description, do I still retain ownership right? If I am not mistaken, there is a category of law known as "Intellectual Property", right?

Edited March 22, 2023 by Fledermaus

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, Fledermaus said:

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that when I encode a message or data into an image, the data seems to be stripped away. WHY? Does this also occur with "meta" data?

 

The contents of all uploaded images are now quietly re-encoded as progressive JPEG regardless of the original file format, removing any information or metadata that may have been included. The only justification I've seen for this was that having the image gradually come into focus rather than being rendered line by line looks prettier for people with slow internet connections.

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The contents of all uploaded images are now quietly re-encoded as progressive JPEG regardless of the original file format, removing any information or metadata that may have been included. The only justification I've seen for this was that having the image gradually come into focus rather than being rendered line by line looks prettier for people with slow internet connections.

The justification I've heard for stripping the metadata is to avoid spoilers (GPS locations) when people post photos in their logs for puzzle caches, multi-caches, and other caches that aren't at the posted coordinates.

[+fizzymagic]

11 hours ago, Fledermaus said:

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that when I encode a message or data into an image, the data seems to be stripped away. WHY? Does this also occur with "meta" data?

 

Yes, this is a serious problem that we have been unable to get GC to address.

 

The only lossless image format allowed is GIF.  Anything else is transcoded to jpeg, with the file extension left as whatever it was.  So a png image is turned into a jpg image but the filename remains .png, misleading the image owner into believing the file has not been changed.

 

Some (but not all) metadata is stripped as well.

 

It's pretty unacceptable behavior, made worse by the refusal of GC to ackowledge that it is happening.

[+thebruce0]

Keep in mind, these image changes are applied when using the website's image hosting (uploading images with the listing, or embedding from an external site). If you host on an approved image host the image will be included directly from the source. That allows you to still use PNGs or images with embedded meta data.

Just don't upload your images to HQ or embed from other 3rd party websites. 

I now serve my images from dropbox. As annoying and arbitrary as it seems. Just easier to avoid all the transcoding and proxy server stuff. Even though I have my own website and hosting from which to serve my images.

 

As for everything else, yeah, don't consider what versions of HTML and CSS you can include. Really only consider what the editor allows you to include. The guide linked above will help. If you have to check to see if a feature is supported in listings, it probably isn't. They're trying to keep styling relatively minimal to be as widely consistent across devices, many of which do not have advanced rendering capabilities.  And it helps listings to just be generally simpler and easier to read.

[Fledermaus]

I will not resort to lowering the quality of my geocache descriptions, for the sake of making them B&W. As for devices that cannot handle my color and/or graphics , perhaps one day they will catch up to the changes in computers of the last decade or two. However, what still puzzles me is the fact that when I create an HTML/CSS page that have been validated, either by an online service or a professional offline program, they seldom if ever, come out right after their submission to GC. Based on that, I can only assume that GC "plays games" with my code and/or corrupts them in some manner, i.e. text size and/or images included. Sometimes it takes two or three attempts to get a page to look correct in it's appearance. Sounds like GC only does what they want and it takes "an act of congress" to get things changed. By the way, the opposite of progress is congress (i.e. con vs pro). Just out of curiosity, I wonder how it is going, over on the other two geocaching websites now-a-days?

Edited March 27, 2023 by Fledermaus