FA glitching up Dropbox links?
4 days ago
Today I sent some Dropbox download links to commissioners via notes and noticed FA are glitching them, giving it "Error 400". :/
It turns out FA is altering the Dropbox download links by adding the segment "amp;" (without the " ") to the address, usually twice on each link.
The download links work again when the "amp;" segments are deleted.
Did anyone else notice that? If so, maybe it's worth to notify the website staff.
It turns out FA is altering the Dropbox download links by adding the segment "amp;" (without the " ") to the address, usually twice on each link.
The download links work again when the "amp;" segments are deleted.
Did anyone else notice that? If so, maybe it's worth to notify the website staff.
FA+

https://x.com/Rise_the_drake/status.....93835739967537
Pun intended :D
& is just encoded & (stands for ampersand). This is usually needed to correctly display special characters, and for HTML's sake, the ampersand is kinda one. The only issue is that they run that whole search-and-replace of & to & not only for the note text (where your browser handles it and just shows an &) but also the link targets
Copypasting the whole address from the reply-box works out and is probably easier than manually replacing & with &
Every website is in the end HTML, a markup language that describes what a website should look like. That's what you see when you right click and select "view source".
Now there's an issue. You might want to have < and > as text on your web site, but oh no, those are used in a special way in HTML. So how do you get them to show up in text? Also how about symbols not usually in the basic character set HTML wants to use? Well whoever made HTML was clever and thought "hey, why don't we use a system like &keyword; to get browsers to translate plain text into special characters? We could write < for less-than, <, and > for greater-than, >!"
The issue with that is.. If you say that & is the start of such a special sequence.. what do you do if someone wants just plain old &?
And that's where & comes in. It's an & that doesn't confuse browsers.
Now, &keyword; was only intended for text. Not links. So.. FA also applying it to links is an issue.
(note, I dumbed it down some, don't cherrypick me)
you can see it yourself if you choose "view page source" here.
you notice that what looked like > in my text is indeed > and what looked like > in my text is indeed &gt; -with the amp telling the browser to not actually convert the whole thing
(also " is for ", quote)
and yes, I realize nobody asked. Lemme geek out *pout*