similar to: php within public

hi, i''m trying to install tinymce following the wiki, so i''ve done svn propedit svn:externals vendor/plugins into the tmp saved tiny_mce <a href="https://secure.near-time.com/svn/plugins/trunk/tiny_mce">https://secure.near-time.com/svn/plugins/trunk/tiny_mce</a> but it say this $ svn propedit svn:externals vendor/plugins svn: Error parsing svn:externals

Hi guys Following little problem. Am using tinymce for a little wysiwyg plugin. it comes with an imagemanager module, but I get the following error when trying to use it: Recognition failed for "/javascripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imanager/imanager.php There is obviously a little php program it wants to pop up but the rails routing is screwing the process... I am running lighttpd and I do have

I''m using TinyMCE[1], a popular javascript WYSIWYG html editor. The editor fails to work when I load Scriptaculous before it -- well depending on the browser. I can make my application load the javascript in a different order, but just in case it''s an issue in scriptaculous I thought I''d report. I have a few pages up -- I''d like to find out if anyone else

Hi all I am new to Mocha. I am trying to use it for my pet rails project. I seem to be getting loads of errors when I add mocha as a plugin. It seems to be conflicting with TinyMCE plugin http://johnwulff.com/ articles/2006/05/31/tinymce-with-ruby-on-rails I am getting the following errors ActionView::TemplateError: undefined method `using_tiny_mce?'' for

How do I get a flash plugin to work with firefox? I thought that I installed it correctly, but I have yet to see any flash videos through firefox. I keep being told that I need an additional plugin. When I folow directions, I'm told I already have it? At least once, I was told I needed to upgrade. In case it helps, here is the output of yum provides '*flash*' | grep -e lash -e dobe

I seem to recall the Effect.Appear setting the final opacity to 0.99 to avoid some bug on some browser; anyone remember the specifics? Seems like we should probably just conditionally check for the broken browser and set to 0.99 for only that one, otherwise leave it at 1.0, but I know I don''t have the full picture of why it was necessary or whether it still is. Greg

Hi Manuel, On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > Hi, > > while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system > abstractions in clang/llvm to be one of the points that could be nicer > to integrate with. I’m writing this mail to propose a strawman and get > some feedback on what you guys think the right way forward is (or > whether we should

Hi Manuel, On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> Hi Manual, >> >> I'm +2 on the general idea. >> >> I have had various thoughts in this direction as well (although no >> implementation). See: >>

Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi Manuel, >>> >>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Manual, > > I'm +2 on the general idea. > > I have had various thoughts in this direction as well (although no > implementation). See: >  http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-July/009903.html > for my RFC from last year (focused at bug reporting, but involved > defining

Hi Manual, I'm +2 on the general idea. I have had various thoughts in this direction as well (although no implementation). See: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-July/009903.html for my RFC from last year (focused at bug reporting, but involved defining a VFS layer). My one main implementation level comment is I don't think FileManager is the right API layer to abstract

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system >>>

Hi, while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system abstractions in clang/llvm to be one of the points that could be nicer to integrate with. I’m writing this mail to propose a strawman and get some feedback on what you guys think the right way forward is (or whether we should just leave things as they are). First, the FileManager we have in clang has helped us a lot for

Hiya, I''ve taken over maintenance of the tiny_mce gem (https://github.com/kete/tiny_mce/) and am preparing a release that will have the latest TinyMCE and take advantage of some TinyMCE jQuery integration. I''m in the process of getting things working again with Rails 2.3.x (jQuery integration stuff broke things) and I could use hand with testing with Rails 3.x. I don''t

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system >> abstractions in clang/llvm to be one of the points that could be nicer >> to integrate with. I’m writing this mail to

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Manuel,

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at

2011/12/6 Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> > wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM,