That final semicolon really should be parsed as a terminator of the escape code -- the fact that it shows up is presumably another artifact of the special handling of punctuation following URLs.

For example, in the earlier-mentioned link that gave me trouble, I replaced colons with : and it all worked fine until the temporary file disappeared.

Note, however, that there is one (minor) snag in the handling of URLs. Consider this link:

User: Annie K

To make it work, the final . was replaced with . so that the actual link text in the message editor was (note the omitted terminating semicolon):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=Annie%20K&#46

However, note that this truncates the user name from <Annie K.> to just <Annie K> -- minor cosmetic issue but annoying to perfectionists (yeah, I know, there is only 1% of these :-).

There is also an interesting interaction between the URL parsing code and (presumably) the code that handles the color of text <quoted in the < and > characters>. BTW, I notice in the preceding sentence that you fixed the incorrect coloring of the period following the > character...

The interaction is that if the normal unchanged link with period at the end gets quoted within < and >, the final period migrates past the >:

<User: Annie K>.

(of course, the link itself is now broken). Moreover, the migrated period has the wrong color: brownish/gold instead of black, as expected in the stuff outside the quotes.

Anyhow, here's a suggestion about how to parse the URLs to preserve the current behavior AND handle the funny terminators in URLs:

First, parse it in the same manner you normally do it; my guess is that you recognize http: as the start of the URL, continue until whitespace, then strip terminating punctuation.

Now, test the validity of the URL by trying to connect to it. If you get a 404, append the terminating punctuation characters one by one to the URL, testing at each step. Stop if you find the resulting link valid. Make any unused punctuation visible.

This will add a bit of CPU processing, but given a fairly low rate of new comment submissions and a fairly low percentage of these that contain URLs, it is probably negligible, and would work a bit better than the current handling.

Of course, if you decide that it is not worth the effort and not bother changing the code, no big deal.

I don't know if I like that idea very much; I can think of many things that could go awry with that method.

For starters, it's hard business to contact outside web-servers on the fly like that. I know some super-sites like Facebook and Google do it all the time, but it's still tricky. You have to worry about servers that don't respond quickly, and decide how long to keep your connection open, knowing that somebody using your site is waiting just as long. Then you have pages that don't produce 404 errors even though they should. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The picture from my post above can also be found here http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... and, on a sidenote, a few pages before was the picture of Jan Kotrc you already have from wikimedia: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... but as this is the newspaper, it may take some effort to recover it.

Can we please have a forum for the ongoing <2013-2014 RILTON CUP>??

Thanks

----

TWIC DOSSIER -> http://www.theweekinchess.com/chess...

Can we please have a forum for the ongoing <2013-2014 RILTON CUP>??>>

Thanks for the quick turnaround. ;-)

16 ?

click for larger view

16 ♗d3-g6!! <trapped pieces: h6-queen>

click for larger view

My fav move so far of 2014, Volkov's 16 ♗d3-g6!!, which gives White a slight advantage according to <STOCKFISH DD>:

http://chessbomb.com/o/2013-rilton/...

<<<<0.4 16. Bg6>>> hxg6 17. g5 Qh7 18. h5 Kf8 19. hxg6 Qg8 20. Nxd5 fxg6 21. Nc7 Bb7 22. Qg3 Ke7 23. Nxe8 Qxe8 24. e4 Nc6 25. d5 Nce5 26. f4 Nc4+ 27. Kd1 Kf7 28. Qd3 Ba6 29. Qf3 Nf8 30. a4 Nd6 31. e5 Nf5

-0.24 16. Kd1 Qd6 17. h5 Ba6 18. Qe2 Bxd3 19. Qxd3 Nc6 20. g5 Ne7 21. Bd2 Nf8 22. e4 Ne6 23. e5 Nxf4 24. Bxf4 Qd7 25. Ke2 Rac8 26. Rag1 cxd4 27. cxd4 Qa4 28. Rc1 Rc4 29. Rxc4 dxc4

-0.26 16. Qf1 Qd6 17. h5 Nf8 18. g5 Nc6 19. Kd1 Ne6 20. Nxe6 Bxe6 21. Qg2 Bd7 22. Qh2 Qxh2 23. Rxh2 Na5 24. Rb1 cxd4 25. cxd4 Rac8 26. Bc2 Nc4 27. e4 dxe4 28. fxe4

-0.32 16. g5 Qd6 17. h5 Ba6 18. Qe2 Bxd3 19. Qxd3 Nc6 20. Kc2 cxd4 21. exd4 Nf8 22. g6 fxg6 23. hxg6 Nxg6 24. Nxg6 Qxg6 25. Qxg6 hxg6 26. Bf4 Rac8 27. Rhg1 Kf7

1) Suppose user Z nominates X for category Y, but X has been already nominated for Y. As suggested earlier, this should be treated as seconding; however, what happens to the Z's nomination quota. Two possibilities: (a) it remains unchanged, since seconding does not affect that quota, or (b) it is decremented. I suggest (a), since (b) would penalize Z for not having read the entire Caissar forum.

I realize you are not used to somebody else being ahead of you on anything, but it can theoretically happen, yanno? ;)

Yeah, if CG thought this through properly your interpretation should be accurate.

At the risk of ruining your week, might you please confirm or "unconfirm" my understanding of the current <Caissar> rules vis a vis "nominations" and "secondings"?

If you clear this up for me once and for all I will mail you burritos.

Ok I have made three (3) "first nominations" in the Best Historian category: <tabanus, whiteshark, and thomastonk>.

In addition, I have also "seconded" the nomination (by another user) of <suenteus po 147> for the Best Historian category.

I can do this right? And so long as I didn't make the first nomination for any and all other current and future nominations for Best Historian, I can "second" as many of these other (not my) nominations as I like?

Why? You do something wrong, it doesn't count. Let me get serious, or half serious, or maybe 10% serious and say if <chess players> can't follow Robert's Rules of Order........

<however, what happens to the Z's nomination quota. Two possibilities: (a) it remains unchanged, since seconding does not affect that quota, or (b) it is decremented. I suggest (a), since (b) would penalize Z for not having read the entire Caissar forum.>

I suggest it remain unchanged since they in fact haven't nominated anyone.

<2) What happens if someone seconds X for category where X has not been nominated by anyone?>

I can do this right?>

That was our intention, yes.

I have found some shocking audiovisual footage that documents your last post here: