Wedge

Funny, I was thinking a lot about it.

The biggest battle is not using their user interface and retaining the current code, and I still think we'll have to deal with the HTML-BBC transition that we already have.

It could also be made smaller by using jQuery (since they're not)

Is BBcode support a priority? I'd be happy without it at all. It seems like the modern way forward would be to have afull WYSIWYG editor that fell back to simple HTML. WSYIWG editing would be the default with a fall back to "view/edit" the source as HTML. Not only would the content be richer, but it would make it easier to cut and paste web clips or content from a full HTML editing application into the editing window. If users need help with HTML, you can put a link to the HTML Cheat Sheet below the edit window!  ;)


Maybe the best thing to do would be to convert any existing BBcode posts to HTML as part of a migration process say strict HTML in the future.


b.t.w. Off Topic: I'm floored by the work you're doing here. I can't wait until wedge is ready for general use!


-dw

Pretty much, I suppose...

People may be coming from SMF or other forum backgrounds -- having to use HTML, even if simple stuff, could be a no-no to them. For instance, one of the most popular tags, 'quote'... How do you write it in HTML? If you want to use proper HTML, then it's going to be fun... Multiple divs and all. If you want to be able to switch between HTML and Wysiwyg without conversions, it's necessary to use the exact same HTML code, which would end up being too detrimental to Wedge I'd say. Of course, we could also simplify the HTML and use something like <q data-author="Nao" data-date="1234342457">, but it means we'd need to convert the data fields to HTML through JavaScript. I actually toyed with the idea some time ago, but I simply couldn't do with the delay before the author and date would show up, so I gave up on that. Maybe in a few years time, when everyone has a strong machine and powerful browser, I don't know... But I don't know that the world is ready for that (yet).

So, of course we could simply use these tags in HTML mode and convert them internally to the long-form HTML when switching to Wysiwyg, but then we could just as well support the same in BBCode...!With Aeva integrated, you only need to add the video's website URL... (And if it's an unpopular site, either you're an admin or your forum allows use of the html tag, in which case you'd just paste your html embed into the html tags, or there's nothing available to you, in which case you just paste the web page URL and expect people to click on it... No biggie...)It's pretty much ready... But we're holding its release mainly for two reasons: (1) there are some nice features I want to add before a beta, and I want to implement them the 'right' way so I don't have to mess up with them later, (2) waiting for Pete to settle in and come back to work on it... Two people won't be too many when it comes to supporting the early betas and living through the process of releasing new betas on a regular basis. (Believe me, I released dozens of versions of Kyodai Mahjongg and then Aeva Media alone, and it's HARD to do that alone. You end up fearing release day...)

We have had this debate before.

There are good reasons to use BBC and not raw HTML, security being the foremost. Yes, I know there are libraries that can help with this but given how many vulnerabilities have been in WordPress due to improper sanitisation, I'm at least wary of doing so.

The second good reason is functionality. Although Nao gave the example of quote, probably a better example of how it's not practical is footnotes. I'd love for someone to tell me how to meaningfully handle footnotes in basic HTML - because it isn't designed for that. BBC can do so.

In fact, if you ever looked at the 'plain HTML' in WordPress, there is a wonderful kludge they've had to implement. There is no tag that meaningfully handles 'more', so they bastardised an HTML comment to make it work - if you look at the source in a WP page that has the more tag, you'll see a variation on:

There is a third reason. I've been using computers for years, I remember first coming across WYSIWYG text processors when they were a new thing.[1] And ever since then, I've spent more time screwing around with formatting than I ever did actually writing content, and that holds true even now.

Most of the useful meaningful HTML has meaningful BBC too, but the same doesn't work the other way around. On top of footnotes and quotes, there's also media codes for embedding items, spoilers and it's much easier to create new short codes.

Point of interest, did you know that WordPress can actually support 'short codes' which is actually the same thing as bbcode if you look at it? The way I see, it's actually harder to justify WYSIWYG support than it is to justify going WYSIWYG only, even though we had some strong arguments on it.

Note also that copy/pasting raw content is actually also a bad idea for general forums as it can screw the layout up if not heavily processed, and if you're doing that, you might as well use BBC and be done with it.

1.	I'm old enough to remember word processors using dot commands for formatting with only basic bold/italics/underline actually being shown on-screen

Haha. I've been around for a while too. The footnote BBC reminds me of page layout used in Tex and LaTex.


I'd been ignoring the security issues, in favor of functionality, it just seemed like it would be flexible to actually allow users to post messages with embedded javascript to increase functionality... well, at least SOME trusted users.


I guess it's really irrelevant what formatting language is as long as the editor is rich enough to accept pasted in Rich Text and generate the correct formatting to get a close proximity of what was pasted.


This really isn't a debate worth rehashing.

I have yet to see a legitimate case where I'd actually trust any non administrator to post anything with JavaScript or Flash in it - outside the aforementioned media sites, and honestly, Aeva-type auto embedding, or failing that a custom BBC is still a better solution.

I get where you're going with accepting copy/pasted code, and that's something I want to see fixed up.

I, too, am old enough to remember when WP meant WordPerfect... Good days, good days.... O' course, the Internet was in black and white back then...

 :whistle:

Well, I wasn't thinking of WordPerfect though it's certainly the age I'm thinking of. I'm actually thinking of a program that was popular back then called Scribble! and had a half-inch manual discussing all its formatting prowess!

Then I remember one of the first 'what you see is what you get' doohickeys on the Amiga, called Wordsworth. I find it telling that I can *still* navigate that today more easily than I can the current version of Word.

How many here used WordStar? I remember when that was the de facto standard for publishing houses.

Seems to me there's a fair-few old-school people here :)

I'm old enough to have used Write.exe for years...

Write's younger than the tools we're talking about ;)

I used devpack on my atari ST.
Now that was old. But not wys.

I could bring up MacWrite.