FYI.

Removing "wrap=hard" on the line #11461 in the elogd.cxx file resolves my problem.

- rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d wrap=hard name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);*/
+ rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);

- rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d wrap=hard name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);
+ rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);

my vote is to remove "wrap=hard":

1) I try to read the specs and my head explodes: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/textarea
2) textarea should just accept input typed by user, should not try to "neatify" it. if user wants long lines, we should let them.
3) this bug (introduced in recent safari, the best I can tell)

K.O.

FYI

They seem to have accepted the bug report:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249923

> - rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d wrap=hard name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);
> + rsprintf("<textarea rows=%d cols=%d name=\"Text\">\n", height, width);
> 
> my vote is to remove "wrap=hard":
> 
> 1) I try to read the specs and my head explodes: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/textarea
> 2) textarea should just accept input typed by user, should not try to "neatify" it. if user wants long lines, we should let them.
> 3) this bug (introduced in recent safari, the best I can tell)
> 
> K.O.

I agree with K.O. Does anybody see a problem in removing "wrap=hard"? 

It was there more for historical reasons. In the old days screens were not so wide and wrapping was more of an issue.
People tended to write longer lines and complained that the long lines got reformatted differently for different screen
sizes. So by adding hard CRLF the formatting looked the same on different screens. These days this is not such an issue
any more and I agree with 2) above. If the user wants a long line, the user should get it.

Stefan

Ahh, now I remember. Well, the I put that in like 25 years ago ;-)

Let's assume the user write a very long line and relies on the wrapping of the text box. So the input might look like the 
first attachment. Then the user hits submit and gets just one long line (second attachment) and has to scroll one kilometre
to the right to see the full line. So there is an inconsistency between the entry form and what the user sees after the
submission. Having "wrap=hard" tells the browser to put CRLF where the wrapping in the textarea happens, so the text looks
the same during entry and after submission. If we remove the "wrap=hard", we would be back to the situation below in the two
attachments.

Opinions?

Stefan

oh! so, that's the cause of another problem I faced a while ago. 
When people edited an ELOG page on a narrow screen device (a.k.a smartphone) it put the extra CRLF and made the page look like the attachment below 
(it broke the original formatting).

I had to "fix" this by setting the width of the textarea to a huge number... 

However, removing "wrap=hard" solves both these problems! ;)

Yepp, that's right. But without the "wrap=hard", you could get one single long line which is almost impossible to read. So there is no perfect solution for all cases. I see three options

1) Remove "wrap=hard" and let the user do as the user wants. This can lead to very long lines almost impossible to read.
2) Keep "wrap=hard" and rely on the browser to put in CRLF between lines according to the textarea box during input. The result will then be the same as during editing. Of course this might 
require to make the textarea width wide enough on small screens not to get too many CRLFs. The default "Message width" is 78 chars, but on modern browsers some JavaScript code automatically sets 
the width to equal the screen width which normally is wider.
3) Add artificial CRCL like every 40 or 80 chars. This is the "beautifying" K.O. mentioned and will never be perfect. Not sure if elog should touch the text the user enters.

Looking at the three options, I kind of conclude that 2) would still be the best.

Stefan

How about adding a config option? 
Ideally, it might be nice to have this option "per record" or "per logbook", but "per instance" should be good enough.