Why does this page display correctly even though the hack has been fixed

October 17, 2015 7:33 PM

I found this page via the wiki, and wondered why it still displays correctly? Amazing to see it being tested and fixed in one page! I would like an ELI5 as well as a more technical explanation. Although this doesn't technically require community input I do feel it deserves to be seen (again in some people's cases.) (Noobs - scroll down to see!!) *smiley face emoticon*
posted by marienbad to MetaFilter-Related at 7:33 PM (27 comments total)

The blink tag isn't a hack exactly - it's just html, albeit html that most browsers don't support anymore. I believe that although the site no longer allows the tag, the fix wasn't retroactive.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:35 PM on October 17, 2015

That filtration (of unacceptable tags) happens at posting time. We don't allow image tags any more either, but you can find old posts that still have embedded images.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:00 PM on October 17, 2015

and some not-so-old posts.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:06 PM on October 17, 2015

Before tags were stripped from post titles, there was this post using <span style="color: orange">.
posted by Rangi at 8:07 PM on October 17, 2015 [3 favorites]

[THIS IS A TEST]
Does

                                                               ;;;                                  
   :DDDDf     DDDDD                                .;;;;;;;;  .;;;   ;;;                            
   fDDDDf    :DDDDD               DDD              ;;;;;;;;;  ;;;.   ;;;   :;;;                     
   DDDDDD    DDDDDf               DDD              ;;;;;;;;;         ;;;   ;;;.                     
   DDDDDD   :DDDDD:               DDD              ;;;              .;;;   ;;;                      
   DDDDDD   DDDDDD     DDDDDD   tfDDLt,  .DDDDDD   ;;;        ;;;   ;;;. :,;;;::   ,;;;;;     ;;;.;;
  iDD;DDD  .DDjDDD   ,DDDDDDDD  DDDDDD  jDDDDDDDf ,;;;       ,;;,   ;;;  ;;;;;;;  ;;;;;;;;   ,;;,;;;
  DDD DDD  DDD DDD   DDD; ,DDD  DDDDDD  DDD; DDDD ;;;;....   ;;;    ;;;  ;;;;;;: ;;;;  ;;;   ;;;;;;.
  DDD DDD  DDf,DDt  GDDt   DDD   DDD   DDD;  tDDD ;;;;;;;,   ;;;    ;;;   ;;;    ;;;   ;;;.  ;;;    
  DDD DDD DDD DDD   DDDffffDDD  tDDL        :DDD. ;;;;;;;    ;;;   ,;;:  .;;;   ,;;;,,,;;;   ;;;    
 ;DDt DDD,DD; DDD   DDDDDDDDDD  DDD:     .DDDDDD :;;;       :;;,   ;;;   ;;;;   ;;;;;;;;;;  :;;,    
 DDD  DDDDDD  DDD  ;DDDDDDDDDf  DDD     DDDDjDDD ;;;;       ;;;.   ;;;   ;;;,   ;;;;;;;;;;  ;;;     
 DDD  DDDDDt :DDj  DDD;         DDD   .DDD, ,DDD ;;;.       ;;;    ;;;   ;;;    ;;;         ;;;     
 DDD  DDDDD  fDD   DDD         :DDD   DDD   GDDi ;;;        ;;;   :;;,   ;;;   .;;;         ;;;     
 DDf  DDDDj  DDD   DDD   .DDD  LDDt  tDDf   DDD .;;;       .;;;   ;;;.  :;;;   :;;,   ;;;  .;;;     
jDD:  DDDD   DDD   DDDDtDDDD.  DDDDD DDDD ;DDDD ;;;;       ,;;:   ;;;   ;;;;;; .;;;:,;;;.  ,;;:     
DDD   DDDf   DDD   tDDDDDDDj   DDDDD GDDDDDGDDD ;;;,       ;;;    ;;;   ;;;;;.  ;;;;;;;,   ;;;      
DDD   DDD   tDD;    ;DDDDD     .DDDD  DDDD:,DDD ;;;        ;;;   .;;;    ;;;;    ;;;;;     ;;;      

still allow the <pre> tag?
posted by not_on_display at 10:40 PM on October 17, 2015 [3 favorites]

eponysterical, not_on_display..

Also, wait, <blink> no longer supported? I figured everyone had just decided it was a bad idea and moved on.
posted by Alterscape at 10:51 PM on October 17, 2015

TIL that blink tags won't even render at all in mobile Safari.

Woah.
posted by Itaxpica at 11:18 PM on October 17, 2015

Blink is still an allowed tag, it just doesn't work in any modern browser.
posted by Mitheral at 12:10 AM on October 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

The blink ones does nothing here, but the source code is full of blink tags so that's just because my browser ignores them (I'm on recent Chrome).

The color hacks further down the page still renders in color, though; the trick there is that the parser allowed you to add a title attribute, but apparently didn't check what you put in it, so you could just close the attribute and insert a style attribute instead (which makes me wonder if onfocus and friends also slipped through back then...).
posted by effbot at 5:09 AM on October 18, 2015

 → I figured everyone had just decided it was a bad idea and moved on

Like that could ever happen on the web …

You can still embed images using the inline URI schema, but you have to click 'em to see 'em, thereby losing 999‰ of the impact.
posted by scruss at 6:27 AM on October 18, 2015

Again, I encourage everyone to follow nobody.
posted by carsonb at 8:04 AM on October 18, 2015 [6 favorites]

Wow, nobody does it better.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:41 AM on October 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

Before tags were stripped from post titles, there was this post using <span style="color: orange">.

That was apparently also before self-links were disallowed, which is how you know it's really, really old.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:19 AM on October 18, 2015

Yes, it's well established that the Internet Anti-Fun Justice League won the <blink> war.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:25 PM on October 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Nooooooooooooooo!!!
posted by homunculus at 12:24 AM on October 19, 2015

There's a Firefox addon that makes it work.
posted by Solomon at 3:01 AM on October 19, 2015

I believe that although the site no longer allows the tag, the fix wasn't retroactive.

Useless trivia story hour: what actually happened is, way back in aught-something, Matt Haughey decided that the blink tag should go away on MetaFilter because someone had been doing something annoying with it. Like, using it, probably. So he said, okay, no more blink tag, it's off the list. And some people were like yay! And some people were like no! And Matt heard all that, and said, in what he thought was a joking tone, that for twenty dollars he'd bring it back.

I, just a mouthy young civilian, kicked in ten immediately and we'll assume for the sake of this retelling got up on a stump and gave a rousing speech to encourage others to help make this happen. Someone else covered the other half. Matt tried to emphasize the part about being joking but also stood by his offer, and brought it back.

And then Big Browser eventually undid all that effort by steadily defaulting blink to not be displayed. And here we are.

Anyway, the moral of the story is this is why we don't offer specific fee schedules to reverse mod decisions.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:50 AM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]

And Matt heard all that, and said, in what he thought was a joking tone, that for twenty dollars he'd bring it back. ...this is why we don't offer specific fee schedules to reverse mod decisions.

Doesn't this just prove that the fee is the same as in town?
posted by Jahaza at 9:12 AM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

Here's the Meta where we bought back BLINK
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on October 19, 2015

Oh, and pre-mod gnfti wrote a song for the blink tag.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:34 AM on October 19, 2015

So basically once the html/css is in the database, it is rendered for that page?

Also, score 1 to Mathowie.

Thanks for answering. That thread is amazing.
posted by marienbad at 2:11 PM on October 19, 2015

. blink
posted by Cranberry at 11:52 PM on October 19, 2015

Saw a version of this on the wall in Stewart's comic book store on last night's episode of BBT, and it is now appropriate.

Recently saw a tweet which claimed that variations of the original are the 00s "baby on board" sign.
posted by terrapin at 5:02 AM on October 20, 2015

It was a dark day for the world when the MARQUEE tag became deprecated.
posted by Justinian at 4:33 PM on October 20, 2015

...we don't offer specific fee schedules to reverse mod decisions.

Everyone has their price.
posted by jeffamaphone at 4:40 PM on October 20, 2015

MetaFilter history - the day we lost the font tag (How and when to use humour).
posted by unliteral at 5:10 PM on October 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

Blink is still an allowed tag, it just doesn't work in any modern browser.

I knew there was a reason I'm still using Opera 12.10. I like that blink shows up in Live Preview, too.
posted by mgar at 10:55 AM on October 24, 2015