I note that the forum postings permit full html to be edited with the WYSIWYG editor, and I would like to take advantage of this if possible when defining glossary entries. I can't work out how.
If this is not possible, I would like to know how to properly fill out the description field of a glossary entry. Can I have just plain text plus links? I tried to do this with the default setting (Moodle autoformat), but it seemed to mess up, linking not only an inlined URL, but all the plain text after it.
Personally I would be fairly comfortable with editing html directly, but I am intending to enable non-technical users to build useful glossaries. I think for this they need at least the ability to easily link to web resources and resources on the site, (by simply adding urls) and preferably the full WYSIWYG editing capabilities of the forum posting tool, but at least a moodle autoformat mode which is not too buggy.
I can't link the Glossary entry verb to the wikipedia resource...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb
it comes out like this
http://moodle.misswebster.com/mod/glossary/view.php?id=12&mode=entry&hook=1
when i use the following
A verb is a doing word such as "I run" or "She likes cheese". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb
Is glossary text processed slightly differently? Is it a bug?
I am using 1.3.4 version of Moodle.
In reply to Cefn Hoile
Re: What format can glossary entries be entered in.
Hi Cefn,
as I know, the glossary supports the HTML editor at all. Reviewing latest changes to the code, something has been recently modified to increase its 'compatibility' with the glossary module and such changes will be included in Moodle 1.4.
I'm not really sure about the nature of such changes (perhaps somebody could clarify it), but the HTML editor seems to work fine for me with Firefox under Moodle 1.4 beta.
About your second issue, one of the glossaries 'features' is to avoid linking to the same term being defined (if you take a look at your example, the word 'verb' in the 'A verb is a doing...' isn't linked at all). To do this, it places automatically every occurrence of the term ('Verb' in your example) inside the <nolink> and </nolink> tags.
This has an horrible effect (BUG) in URLs that are post-processed by Moodle to be converted in links. I've created Bug 1790 about this issue. I'll try to solve it as soon as possible.
As a workaround you can write all the HTML code instead of using Moodle's auto-format feature. Ie, instead of writing this in your description:
"See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb..."
(that becomes automatically linked by the auto-format feature)
you can use:
"See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb</a>..."
(that is linked too because its standard html code and avoid your problem)
Ciao
as I know, the glossary supports the HTML editor at all. Reviewing latest changes to the code, something has been recently modified to increase its 'compatibility' with the glossary module and such changes will be included in Moodle 1.4.
I'm not really sure about the nature of such changes (perhaps somebody could clarify it), but the HTML editor seems to work fine for me with Firefox under Moodle 1.4 beta.
About your second issue, one of the glossaries 'features' is to avoid linking to the same term being defined (if you take a look at your example, the word 'verb' in the 'A verb is a doing...' isn't linked at all). To do this, it places automatically every occurrence of the term ('Verb' in your example) inside the <nolink> and </nolink> tags.
This has an horrible effect (BUG) in URLs that are post-processed by Moodle to be converted in links. I've created Bug 1790 about this issue. I'll try to solve it as soon as possible.
As a workaround you can write all the HTML code instead of using Moodle's auto-format feature. Ie, instead of writing this in your description:
"See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb..."
(that becomes automatically linked by the auto-format feature)
you can use:
"See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb</a>..."
(that is linked too because its standard html code and avoid your problem)
Ciao
In reply to Eloy Lafuente (stronk7)
Re: What format can glossary entries be entered in.
by Nic McPhee -
A cheesy workaround is to use an HTML character code in the relevant part of the link to fool the auto-linking facility. If you write "apple", for example, as "apple", then it will appear or link correctly, but successfully fake out the auto-linking facility.
The biggest problem is that it could seriously confuse someone (including the original author) who comes back to edit the entry later and doesn't know (or remember) why that strange code is there.
I haven't a clue if this hack is needed when using the HTML editor as I currently have that turned off, but it works fine in the other editors.
The biggest problem is that it could seriously confuse someone (including the original author) who comes back to edit the entry later and doesn't know (or remember) why that strange code is there.
I haven't a clue if this hack is needed when using the HTML editor as I currently have that turned off, but it works fine in the other editors.
In reply to Nic McPhee
Re: What format can glossary entries be entered in.
Hi,
a lot of polish-tasks has been done to the glossary module last days (some of them about the html editor).
I think that this issue has been solved (see Bug 1790) and no-workarounds will be necessary anymore.
If somebody can test it...before 1.4 release!
Ciao
a lot of polish-tasks has been done to the glossary module last days (some of them about the html editor).
I think that this issue has been solved (see Bug 1790) and no-workarounds will be necessary anymore.
If somebody can test it...before 1.4 release!
Ciao
In reply to Eloy Lafuente (stronk7)
Re: What format can glossary entries be entered in.
by Cefn Hoile -
How can I get the HTML WYSIWYG editor to work with (all) input forms (like the glossary) which accept html.
I thought this was a really good feature, which I encountered in some parts of 1.3 but not all.
Following an upgrade to 1.4 stable, I was hoping for the html editor to be embedded in more of the input forms (such as the glossary), but this doesn't seem to be the case, unless I'm doing something strange.
I think this would be very useful for the (non-technical) people who are intended to use this site to be able to format their content, and embed resources nicely.
How do I go about switching it on? If it can't be switched on, how do I go about hacking the code so that it is embedded in all the places where html is an optional input format?
Cefn
http://cefn.com
I thought this was a really good feature, which I encountered in some parts of 1.3 but not all.
Following an upgrade to 1.4 stable, I was hoping for the html editor to be embedded in more of the input forms (such as the glossary), but this doesn't seem to be the case, unless I'm doing something strange.
I think this would be very useful for the (non-technical) people who are intended to use this site to be able to format their content, and embed resources nicely.
How do I go about switching it on? If it can't be switched on, how do I go about hacking the code so that it is embedded in all the places where html is an optional input format?
Cefn
http://cefn.com
I'd like to nominate myself for dumbass of the week.
Turns out it was because I was absent mindedly switching between Safari (which doesn't support the embedded html editor) and Mozilla (which approximately does).
Hence sometimes I would encounter the WYSIWYG editor and other times I wouldn't, depending how I launched the web session (e.g. from mail vs. from the dock).
Hadn't realised there was a browser support issue here. Doesn't excuse my rank stupidity!
Cefn
http://cefn.com
Turns out it was because I was absent mindedly switching between Safari (which doesn't support the embedded html editor) and Mozilla (which approximately does).
Hence sometimes I would encounter the WYSIWYG editor and other times I wouldn't, depending how I launched the web session (e.g. from mail vs. from the dock).
Hadn't realised there was a browser support issue here. Doesn't excuse my rank stupidity!
Cefn
http://cefn.com
In reply to Cefn Hoile