Skip to content

HTML or BBCode: Which should we use?

1246

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    lolienJuliusBorisov
  • PeccaPecca Member Posts: 2,174
    Hmm, I don't care all that much. So I will sell my vote for a cookie. :)
    [Deleted User]mashedtaterskaguana
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    JuliusBorisovmashedtatersNimran
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    @Pecca I will give you one :cookie:

    But I'm not going to tell you how to vote, so you'll have to guess. ;)
  • PeccaPecca Member Posts: 2,174
    @Dee A free cookie then :tongue:
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    @Pecca When you get down to it, those are the best kind of cookie.
    Peccawubble
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,262
    Looks like the votes are pretty even now. What do we do if there is a tie?
    JuliusBorisov
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    JuliusBorisovGrammarsalad
  • SCARY_WIZARDSCARY_WIZARD Member Posts: 1,438
    Shandyr wrote: »
    @SCARY_WIZARD
    Why would you want to change your vote?
    You have made your choice and voted in favor of BBCode because you can say "BBbbblttlflblblcode" when you say it.
    BBCode, because I can say "BBbbblttlflblblcode" when I say it.
    I think that is a very reasonable choice and you should stick to it.

    I just wanted to be annoying! But I guess, since I sort of learned HTML by extrapolating from BBCode when I was a teenager, I will go with BBCode!
    [Deleted User]
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,603
    Given that I truly don't understand the question can I vote for the one that has the most familiar symbols and functionality, like Word (or whichever the most frequently used word processing programme is these days).
  • NimranNimran Member Posts: 4,875
    Who wants :cookie:s? :cookie:s for everyone! *casts :cookie: Storm*
    Peccakaguanamashedtaters
  • AbelAbel Member Posts: 785
    I must say so far the only difference I've noticed between HTML and BBCode in practical use comes down to the use of [] instead of <>. On French keyboards it's a bit harder to type [] (needs AltGr). So, BBCode is not even simpler than HTML for me.
    Troodon80[Deleted User]JuliusBorisovlolien
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    AbelJuliusBorisovmashedtaters
  • inethineth Member Posts: 707
    I've used a lot of HTML markup in posts like this (look also inside the spoilers).

    Will that no longer be possible?

    Specifically, does BBCode allow:
    • Showing images at a specific size (width and height in pixels)?
    • Using fancy styles for headings (color, font, shadow)?

    The rest I could probably do without, but I'd really miss those.
    AbelJuliusBorisov
  • AbelAbel Member Posts: 785
    @Shandyr There's a French forum but no French (last post is almost a month old), so that's going to prove difficult :p !
    [Deleted User]wubble
  • inethineth Member Posts: 707
    Alright, after reading argent77's post and experimenting a little more, I think I can answer my own questions:



    Fancy headings: Works well enough.
    [size=7][font=Sherwood][color=#53622D]Some Heading[/color][/font][/size]
    
    Some Heading
    No glow, but I suppose we can learn to live without that... :P



    Specifying image sizes: Does not work.
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/kidoO9U.png[/img]
    [img=50x50]http://i.imgur.com/kidoO9U.png[/img]
    [img width="50" height="50"]http://i.imgur.com/kidoO9U.png[/img]
    
    kidoO9U.pngkidoO9U.pngkidoO9U.png
    According to bbcode.org, the second and third image should be reduced to quarter size, but it seems the forum does not support those attributes.
    Of course we can work around it by resizing the images to the correct size before uploading them. In some cases that means we'll have to upload twice as many images (one resized version for embedding in the post, one full-size version for linking to), which is a little more hassle, but still acceptable.



    So, after thinking about it more calmly, I'd like to change my vote to BBCode. The practical disadvantages for us power-users are minor and/or can be worked around, and it's not fair to ask newbies to write weird code like
    <div class ="Spoiler">
    
    just to get simple things like spoilers.
    AbelJuliusBorisov
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    ineth wrote: »
    it's not fair to ask newbies to write weird code like
    <div class ="Spoiler">
    
    just to get simple things like spoilers.
    Can I just point out a random tidbit of information from here: support was re-added for [spoiler][/spoiler]

    :-)
    DeeCrevsDaaklolien
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,714
    edited March 2016
    I've noticed one thing.

    When the page if full of pics put into spoilers, in the process of uploading this page I actually can see what is in the spoilers.

    For example, https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/48346/the-roadmap-to-v2-0-3-milestones-cleared/p16

    It's for a moment of two, before my browser uploads the page and adds spoiler buttons.

    I didn't notice this behavior with the previous code.
    Troodon80Abellolien
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    @Bengoshi,

    I've also noticed that the images load regardless of whether you use spoilers or not, so using spoilers does not reduce page load times in the way it used to.
    JuliusBorisovAbellolien
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I've noticed that too--though it's also worth noting that this would also be the case in HTML; it's not limited to BBCode.

    (Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but it's not strictly relevant to deciding between the two formats.)
    lolien
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,714
    Dee wrote: »
    I've noticed that too--though it's also worth noting that this would also be the case in HTML; it's not limited to BBCode.

    The fact that images load regardless of whether you use spoilers or not indeed took place in HTML. But the thing I've described about seeing the spoiler content for a few seconds when the page is uploading, is new.
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    bengoshi wrote: »
    Dee wrote: »
    I've noticed that too--though it's also worth noting that this would also be the case in HTML; it's not limited to BBCode.

    The fact that images load regardless of whether you use spoilers or not indeed took place in HTML. But the thing I've described about seeing the spoiler content for a few seconds when the page is uploading, is new.

    Right--and again, I suspect that's not related to BBCode, but to the changes Vanilla has been making to the spoiler button feature.
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    Dee wrote: »
    it's not limited to BBCode.
    Yes, it's not going to be limited to BBCode or HTML, it would be the same for any other format they might offer. The point is that Vanilla is faffing about on the server side PHP. :|
  • kaguanakaguana Member Posts: 1,328
    edited March 2016
    Hmmm NO idea what to choose:
    Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Catch the baby by the toe. If it hollers/screams let him go, Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, you are it.

    Edit: Ok I decided on friendly
    Post edited by kaguana on
  • RodrianRodrian Member Posts: 426
    edited March 2016
    After (better late than never?) getting to try the new writing comments style, I'm gonna go with: HTML FFS!*

    [edit:]
    aaahh yes! forgot to mention. . that stoopid BBcode of yours, has wrecked my whole random treasures thread! :rage:

    My Lords! Please, stop trying to fix what's not broken, for only a matter/sake (?) of changes
    (this also relates to v2.0 patch :neutralevilwink:)

    * - "neutral evil" parts of comment. .
    Post edited by Rodrian on
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited March 2016
    (Yea blue on a blue background doesn't really work...but I'm sticking with it)

    BBCode Forever!
  • Troodon80Troodon80 Member, Developer Posts: 4,110
    @Rodrian,
    Rodrian wrote: »
    that stoopid BBcode of yours, has wrecked my whole random treasures thread!
    That's not the fault of BBCode, that's just Vanilla again. They renamed the 'UserSpoiler' class name to just 'Spoiler'. And one of the problems that arises there is that you can no longer have fancy custom titles. From what I can tell, anything with a class name of 'Spoiler' will be generated on page load—which is also why images are now loading at the same time the page does. I don't know if there's a work around for it, but in the mean time you can use this:
    <div class="Spoiler" style="background-color:rgb(100,50,0) !important;">Your text goes here.</div>
    
    Rodrianlolienkaguana
  • FranpaFranpa Member Posts: 637
    Ideally this topic should be moved to the Site Resources forum once it has run its course (If it hasn't already). Since that's logically the place for discussing the website and forums!
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    It will be. But I wanted to make sure the discussion got maximum visibility, since it's going to affect everyone who uses the site.
    kaguana
This discussion has been closed.