What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.
20  
Is that... is that a freehand unicorn? If you traced it, cool, but if it's freehand, hats off to you, sir or madam. –  Pops Jun 27 '11 at 16:44
    
Browser info? No repro on Win7 FF 3.6.18. –  Jon Seigel Jun 27 '11 at 16:46
3  
Win7/Chrome version 9999 or whatever the latest is (13 today). Also happens on Win7/IE9. –  bkaid Jun 27 '11 at 16:48
    
Repro Win7 x64/Chrome 10 (my work proxy keeps it from updating, YAY) –  user7116 Jun 27 '11 at 16:57
    
What do unicorns have to do with extra long links included in the post body? –  random Jun 27 '11 at 17:07
11  
@random If you have to ask, we can't possibly express it in a way that would help you understand the connection. I suggest meditating. –  Adam Davis Jun 27 '11 at 17:22
    
@Adam Davis - thanks for teaching me that "EEEEEK" has 5 E's. I wasn't entirely sure and guessed wrong. A case of RTFM for me, sorry. –  bkaid Jun 27 '11 at 17:55
    
status-declined coming in 3..2...1... –  staticx Jun 27 '11 at 18:03
2  
@Off Actually, I could be wrong. According to the meme page, it should be four: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19478/the-many-memes-of-meta/… –  Adam Davis Jun 27 '11 at 18:04

4 Answers 4

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I have put in a fix. We had word-wrap:break-word; on <p> only, now I've applied it to the whole post body text.

This fix caused more problems than it solved, so it's backed out for now; we'll add a better fix.

share|improve this answer
    
@TomWij the fix is on dev. it will be in the next production build. (later tonight EST most likely) –  Jin Jun 27 '11 at 21:29
    
I think this change makes code blocks wrap very ugly in Webkit browsers. Can you confirm that? –  deceze Jun 28 '11 at 9:44

Please add your results if they are not already shown below:

Firefox - OK

  • NO REPRO - 7.0a1 - 2011-06-20 - Windows 7 x64
  • NO REPRO - 5.0 - Windows 7
  • NO REPRO - 4.0.1 - Windows 7 x64, Linux (Iceweasel)
  • NO REPRO - 3.6.18 - Windows 7

Chrome - BAD

  • REPRO - 14.0.797.0 dev - Windows 7 x64
  • REPRO - 13 - Windows 7, Linux
  • REPRO - 12.0.742.5 dev - Windows 7 x64
  • REPRO - 10 - Windows 7 x64
  • REPRO - 12.0.742.100 - Ubuntu 10.10 x86

IE - BAD

Safari - BAD

  • REPRO - 5.0.5 (7533.21.1) - Windows 7 x64
  • REPRO - 5.0.5 (6533.21.1) - Mac OS X 10.6
  • REPRO - Mobile Safari iPhone iOS 5.0 beta 2
share|improve this answer
3  
@Tom Thanks for the cleanup and better format! –  Adam Davis Jun 27 '11 at 18:00

This can be fixed in most browsers by applying a wrapping class to links that exceed the post width:

.force-wrap
{
    white-space:
        pre-wrap,
        -moz-pre-wrap !important,
        -pre-wrap, -o-pre-wrap;

    word-wrap:
        break-word;
 }

Specific browser fixes:

  1. Chrome: CSS 3: pre-wrap: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#white-space-prop

  2. FF < 3.5: -moz-pre-wrap !important: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/white-space

  3. Opera: -pre-wrap, -o-pre-wrap;: No specific official reference, often mentioned.

  4. IE 9: break-word: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms531184.aspx

What I see:

  1. Firefox: Still not occurring.

  2. Google Chrome: No longer occurring.

  3. Opera: No longer occurring.

  4. Internet Explorer 9: Still occurring, has been reduced as one split does takes place...

share|improve this answer

This could also be fixed by not pasting in whopping great big raw URL's such as that one.

Sometimes a raw url is fine, but it's better to hide under a "fancier link" (as the help calls it) with a sensible textual description about what is being linked to:

- [link to something of interest](http://myreally.big.url/....)
share|improve this answer
    
Perhaps we could reject posts that have links of X subsequent characters with a warning? –  Tom Wijsman Jun 27 '11 at 20:14
    
@AdamDavis: To what would it convert the link? –  Tom Wijsman Jun 27 '11 at 21:25
    
@Tom Sorry, I read "reject posts" and thought of autoconverting them instead, using the format of this answer. I'm somewhere around 13-14 steps away from what I'm reading apparently. Anyway, ignore the ravings of this madman. –  Adam Davis Jun 27 '11 at 21:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .