Before the fishbones fly, please let me explain. Having looked
the source code for a typical HB page, and seen comments by
aware that this Idea may not be acceptable. But....
The fact is, some pages actually already do include
--there is a "jumptofirst();" function call in the HTML "body" tag
the page I edited, to CREATE the text of this Idea-page, but not
created-Idea page. I see that the "onload" attribute of the
"body" tag is still present, but it is not connected to a function
call; it COULD be harmlessly defaulted to onload=";".
function to be included, like this: "jumptofirst();userfunc();" or
perhaps more simply ";userfunc();" when the jumptofirst
function is not present. The
default "userfunc" for a given page would be basically empty (or
simple "return;" statement). The net effect is, no change for
When an ordinary Idea page is loaded, below the Idea are
option could be added, but would only appear when the author
of the page loads the page (like "edit" options for links and
appear to the authors of those links and annos).
starting with the empty/default "userfunc". Other functions
could be created, and get called inside the userfunc. It would
be highly recommended
that development of the code be done outside the HB
(and simply be pasted into the textbox when perfected), due to
the following necessity.
It would be unwise to let that code appear to generic HB users
without it getting vetted, first. THIS Idea is Half-Baked
I'm not sure who might volunteer to do such vetting, to ensure
Idea page (computer science students at the university where
HB (last I heard) is hosted, wanting credits?). That is of course
another reason why this Idea could get fishboned.
Well, that's enough for now. Things could get lots more
to want to write some HTML code, so that the page will have
extra elements in some sort of "sandbox" portion of the overall
that would open up even more possible cans of worms. But,
imagine the fun possibilities, when all just happens to get done