• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Commerce Subscriptions need to be desperately simplified

    In the real world there's a full paper-trail back to the buyer's full details via the PayPal transaction so the buyer isn't actually able to deny the seller those details. But having discussed it with the few users who'd made this lack-of-anonymity complaint to me, they wanted their details on the systems of as few places as possible from where it might get hacked, which is fair enough. And as there's no need for me to know who these people are, why would I want it anyway? For some websites operating in some of the darker corners (and not necessarily anything remotely illegal), this can be a bit of an issue. I think in my case it's a few with leanings towards tin foil hats, but there you go.  
  2. Commerce Subscriptions need to be desperately simplified

    I do exactly that (not software licences tho, ad-free subscriptions). I declare the sale amount, I pay the required VAT on it as tho every sale is an internal UK sale. Job done. I am not required to keep buyers details, tho I can be subject to a tax investigation at any time where I might have to justify everything I've done towards tax and suffer the consequences if I can't,. For the amounts i'm talking about proof of transactions accurately recorded would suffice (and that would be easily done by the PayPal front page numbers matching what I have recorded in my accounts).
  3. Commerce Subscriptions need to be desperately simplified

    It's derived via VAT (sales tax) law. A seller is required to provide a receipt detailing VAT on request by the customer, and the customer has to provide nothing in return. Other laws and regs can impact over that, but that's the baseline and would be applicable in most retail transactions (which would include online for the occasions when no goods need shipping so no details are required).
  4. Commerce Subscriptions need to be desperately simplified

    The world is not the USA. All that is required in the UK is that income is properly declared. There is no requirement in law for a seller to take the buyer's personal details no matter whether face to face or online. In fact, the buyer has a right in law to NOT to give his personal details and the seller has to accept that.  
  5. +1 I can't believe it wasn't included in the first place.
  6. pages navigator bug

    the pages navigator doesn't count posts correctly to put you onto the right page. If you go here, it offers 45 pages.https://community.invisionpower.com/topic/340209-subscriptions-manager/#comment-2107126 If you click on the link to go to the 45th page, it says 'not found' because there's only enough posts for 44 pages.      
  7. Embed Tweets

    Works for me on 3.4.8, but I did have to amend the code slightly.I followed the instructions as included in what you download, and then after installing the two 'Media Tag Replacements', I clicked on the 'edit media tag' link to the rigtht of each of them, and amended the text in the 'Media Replacement HTML' box., to add "http:" to the script source URL.<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/$1/status/$2"></a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/code] to [code]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/$1/status/$2"></a></blockquote><script async src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/code]and then the same process for the 'Tweet Embed Statuses'It's also worth noting that you won't see anything if you make your embedded tweet post via the 'quick post' box which doesn't reload the page. You'll need the page to be fully-freshly loaded to see the embedded tweet. I hope this helps.
  8. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    it is not a viable solution within my working parameters - which is what I'm trying to get thru to people here. :rolleyes:
  9. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    No, I want a php include. JUST a php include. There would be no 'parent file' - which would be a IPB hook. That has an extra overhead of it's own, before getting to what the hook might do (either internally, or externally by loading in a php-include).
  10. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    if I could run the include without the hook, then there is no load from the hook. The hook has an overhead of its own, outside of what might be done within that 'hook' (or, alternatively, 'include'). The additional load comes from the hook, nowhere else. My way:- 1. load include file. 1. run include code ('do process'). hook way:- 1. is there a hook? 2. load hook 3. 'do process' Tell me again that they're the same. :lol:
  11. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    incorrect, laughably incorrect. It's probably the case that it can't be done as things stand with IPB, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.
  12. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    that's simply not true. Good job I'm not daft enough to believe you. :) The differences might be minimal, but there *ARE* differences. That minimal gets to make a difference at peak loads.
  13. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    Eh? I don't want to be using a hook!! I want to use an include, so that I have one file dealing with the EU cookie issue for all my website (most of which is outside of IPB). I don't want to use a hook, because that carries an extra server overhead.
  14. All IPB forums breaching EU law

    in effect, yes - but without the extra overhead of an actual hook.