Wedge

Ah, yes... But then again, Facebook is super-scripted, just like Google there's a lot of handling happening behind the scenes, and since they have full control of their pages (unlike Wedge which has to deal with future plugins), it's not hard to imagine they could pull it off, I guess...

Although it's interesting to consider using JSON or XML or whatever to retrieve the posts; but that would also imply, I guess, doing the same even on non-infinite pages, i.e. we get the JSON data inside the page, and we inject it through JS... Hmm, not very realistic, I'd say... (But it certainly makes it harder to save the web page, for those interesting in protecting their content, I suppose... :^^;:)

Where do you want me to go, then..?

Yup, probably, but not in Chrome, which is what I'm using these days, either through Chrome Canary, Opera 15 or Sleipnir... ;)

Only thing I could do, is also implement a reverse infinite scrolling, where scrolling to the top loads the previous pages...
It's possible to do, just annoying.

Also, I'd like to discuss an alternative implementation I made today, which I find really funny...
It all comes down to the fact that I'm not satisfied with having JS problems when loading posts. Really, infinite scrolling is a feature that's targeted to showing elements that don't need JavaScript to 'work'.
So, I went back to using an iframe... Except, instead of showing it, I simply detached the post list, and appended it to the main page. The trick is to use .detach() -- this will keep the events and data, something that even .clone(true, true) doesn't seem to be able to do in jQ when doing an iframe to parent move.

And here's the funny thing... While, for the first time, I managed to get a Dailymotion embed to show up, the scripts are actually STILL inside the iframe, even though I moved them too... So, whenever I click the Delete button on a new post, the confirm popup shows up... Inside the iframe, of course..! Ah ah, very funny, indeed...
Similarly, checking a mod checkbox on a new post will show the "Delete selected posts" option, but in the iframe, not in the main page... While doing the same on an 'old' post, will show the option in the main page, of course.

So, right now, I just don't know where to get, eh... I'm thinking, there MUST be a way to make JavaScript execute, and not conflict with the main page's scripts.
After all, Google Images have (some) JS in their infinite scrolling images, and Tumblr also has events & co. on their new posts/images. I looked into them a bit, and they seem to actually be using the Infinite Scrolling plugin for jQuery, which dates back to 5 years ago..! I didn't even remember jQuery existed at that point, ah ah... Well, I'm debugging through it, and can't see anything related to executing JS, so, hmm... I dunno.

I'm not losing hope; but, honestly, it's taken its toll on me, at least a bit...

Okay, I was thinking about this, and decided to discuss it first...

How about, we change the permission page, at load time, to replace the radio buttons with a pseudo-select box?
I'm thinking along the lines of the post icon selector, i.e. a green/black/red icon that you can click, and it shows a small dropdown with all possible choices.

As you probably know, I already did something similar in Noisen with the privacy selector; it's re-using most of the IconList code, and it works very well; in fact, I was even able to add checkboxes to the popup, so it's really comfortable in terms of power, I'd say.

What I'm seeing, in the future, is an IconList that would be entirely configurable; it would rely on some custom JS to turn any kind of item into a dropdown list, along with a callback, to transform it internally back into whatever we want, so that we can apply it to radio buttons, checkboxes, select boxes and so on...

What do you think, guys..? Is it realistic, or even exciting, or just something that's not worth it..?

So, last April I disabled this feature, because I'd discovered that no matter how much I worked on fixing it across browsers, nested flexboxes have an undefined behavior.

Today, for some reason, I decided I wanted to see if I could do without the parent flexbox, and only use the child. So, I experimented on it, and added a dummy div in postarea, and made it absolutely positioned, but then I remembered the table cell itself could be relatively positioned, because of a Firefox bug or something, so I tweaked everything, and managed to get the child div to take the entire height of the cell, *without even resorting to absolute positioning*!

This is probably a Chrome bug or something, but from my tests (and I assure you, it was a totally random shot, not some hack I read from another website), setting the table's height to 100% (which doesn't have any impact) allows me to set it on its cells as well. Odd, eh..? And then I can also set height: 100% on the child div. It works, and allows me to turn the div into a flexbox, but unfortunately, the height: 100% trick didn't work on other browsers, and thus can't be used there, AFAIK.

Then I thought about it some more, and decided I didn't give a damn... I'm on Chrome, I can decide to 'improve' its layout if it supports it; other browsers will just behave as usual. I also removed the dummy div, and tried doing display: flex on the postarea, and it friggin' worked. I can't believe it, eh..?!! Anyway, considering that it's Chrome-only now, I'll spot bugs soon enough, so, I suppose, it's time to restore flexbox into Wedge, and enjoy the moment.

'course, as usual, if someone finds a truly cross-browser way to do it, feel free to point it out...!

This will be in my next commit, I think... Along with other things, hmm... Can't tell, it's top secret.[1]

1.	No, not really... I'm re-doing the Ajax box, but I'm not 100% happy with it; actually, I'm tempted to remove it entirely, and replace it with a page-wide 'progress' cursor during the call... I did a test, and it worked.

That would imply typing my pw to access the admin area, because only Opera supports this in its wand.
Maybe, if we rewrote the admin login to ask for the user name as well..? Then it'd be supported by Chrome's auto-fill... :^^;:

I only changed some colors, added title params everywhere (really!), and decided that the gzipped difference is too trivial to care about.

BTW, thanks for figuring that out... ;)