19

This question has a really long hyperlink in it and it takes over the page.

Eeek hyperlink bleeds why???

EDIT
Here's an exact copy of the link in question:

9
  • 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, 2011 at 16:44
  • Browser info? No repro on Win7 FF 3.6.18.
    – Jon Seigel
    Jun 27, 2011 at 16:46
  • 3
    Win7/Chrome version 9999 or whatever the latest is (13 today). Also happens on Win7/IE9.
    – bkaid
    Jun 27, 2011 at 16:48
  • Repro Win7 x64/Chrome 10 (my work proxy keeps it from updating, YAY)
    – user7116
    Jun 27, 2011 at 16:57
  • What do unicorns have to do with extra long links included in the post body?
    – random
    Jun 27, 2011 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.
    – Pollyanna
    Jun 27, 2011 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, 2011 at 17:55
  • status-declined coming in 3..2...1... Jun 27, 2011 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/…
    – Pollyanna
    Jun 27, 2011 at 18:04

4 Answers 4

2

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.

2
  • @TomWij the fix is on dev. it will be in the next production build. (later tonight EST most likely)
    – Jin
    Jun 27, 2011 at 21:29
  • I think this change makes code blocks wrap very ugly in Webkit browsers. Can you confirm that?
    – deceze
    Jun 28, 2011 at 9:44
8

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
1
  • 3
    @Tom Thanks for the cleanup and better format!
    – Pollyanna
    Jun 27, 2011 at 18:00
6

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...

2

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/....)
3
  • Perhaps we could reject posts that have links of X subsequent characters with a warning? Jun 27, 2011 at 20:14
  • @AdamDavis: To what would it convert the link? Jun 27, 2011 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.
    – Pollyanna
    Jun 27, 2011 at 21:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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