Talk:BBCode

message: one thing that would be handy is to mention how to not make the codes take effect  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.21.147 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly improve this? 

message: I have reverted edits by Apoc2400 as his/her idea of NPOV seems a little too strict. My deleted comments were fair, relevant and totally accurate. If you feel that they could be better integrated into the article or worded more fairly, please revise. - Jonathan Williams 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]]

message: I don't see an edit button for it, so:  "(of which there are a seeming infinitude of freely available)" needs the second "of" removed pretty badly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.113.42.229 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the whole phrase. MrHen. 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  somebody fix this please 

message: I noticed that the HTML examples given are somewhat inconsistent.  The i tag is converted to HTML's em, but the b tag is left as HTML's b.  Both b and i have been deprecated in XHTML.  I would like to see consistency between in using either "old" or "new" HTML tags.  The HTML examples given should be i and b or em and strong. MrHen. 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as elements like b are not XHTML but obsolete HTML elements. It would also be interesting to compare BBCode both to HTML and XHTML as BBCode is mostly based on obsolete HTML elements. --Goa103 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but are  and  now exactly equivalent to  and , repectively? I just know that my (X)HTML instructor told me that  and , although technically correct, were slightly more ambiguous. -- trlkly 17:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought you could use either set one being logical  and   and the other being physical  and  when you use physical it is always bold or italicized but when using logical it would use browser defined formatting.  so if you used  you would most likely get bold text but it is possible that depending on the users settings you could get italics and it works the same way with  71.94.14.108 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  b and i are as presentational in their BBCode form as in the original HTML form, therefore it only makes sense to show the b/i HTML tag as "translation". em and strong are not inherently defined as italic and bold, respectively, and certainly not meant for such presentational goals, and therefore are not suitable as a translation. I have therefore removed those tags from the table. Note that the column is named HTML - not XHTML. Even if you want to have an XHTML translation rather than HTML you should use (inline) CSS, and not the tags meant for indicating emphasis. 62.251.111.252 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to make the distinction between XHTML and HTML then you should also make the distinction between CSS and HTML as the style attribute is HTML but the CSS within is not HTML at all. So for the exact same reasons 'do not fit' within a HTML labeled column... that is if we are looking to be truely 'exact' by your definition. the strong and em tags are of course in the spec not told to be bold and italics but they are also NOT told to be either and that is why every single notable browser renders them as such, and if you want a screen reader to read a bolded section correctly with the right weight of voice while ALSO making the text bold for normal readers.... strong is the best tag to use! (and so on with em) that is why most users prefer them and that is why i think they belong there moreso than the CSS variants you added. My 2c anyway  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWhiteDragon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML 

message: The article defines BBCode has a lightweight markup language. I totally disagree as it would make HTML a lightweight markup language too. Less elements doesn't make a markup language a lightweight one. Moreover BBCode syntax is very similar to the HTML one, where < and > have only been replaced by brackets. --Goa103 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most BBCode languages can match with regular grammar, but HTML only can match with regular expression including recursive patterns. Almost BBCode languages do not have escape mechanism that is used to display special syntax character like "[" or "]", but HTML can display "<" or ">" by using entity. --LungZeno 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most (all?) BBCode languages allow for "some [b]bold with [b]bold[/b] within[/b]" which does not match a regular grammar. Lots of implementations use regular expressions, but they tend to fall over or at the very least produce invalid HTML (which since the point is to produce HTML for rendering, makes it a clear bug).83.147.166.27 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is a lightweight markup language based on its use of implementation. The language is very easy for almost anyone to use and most of the time doesn't require additional attributes as you can hardcore attributes on the backend. So the code it produces isn't lightweight because it produces HTML but the markup to use is lightweight because it is very easy to use and quite simplistic. --RottNKorpse 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is BBCode a lightweight markup language ? 

message: Thanks.
Regards,
Luna  —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The use of HTML is discouraged and will usually be deleted. Sometimes Wikipedia is converted by external sources that either do not render HTML when they access Wikipedia data or convert that data into a format other than HTML. Wikipedia uses Wikitext. For details about the formatting on Wikipedia check out How to edit a page -Nick Catalano  contrib talk 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Wikipedia Support BBCode? 

message: The link to "YaBB code reference" shows a page reporting, "This action is not allowed from an outside domain". Reloading the page works. Maybe the link should be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.170.141 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Say if BBCode is complete in that there is a way to quote a "[" to get one into the rendered output. Jidanni (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say how to quote "[" 

message: This article could do with a list of implementations (IMHO).  The articles for Markdown and Textile do. 62.232.250.50 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Implementations? 

message: In most implementations I've used, [url] tags do not open in the same tab, but rather open a new one. I'm not great at HTML but I believe it leads to target _blank, could anyone fix this? The tricky part (as far as I can tell) is getting the example on the right column to also lead to a new tab.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeatNit (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  url tag new tab 

message: The columns in the "Tags" table are not labeled.
It appears that the first column is HTML, the second is BBCode, and the third is rendered output.
There should be headers to say so explicitly. I'm not quite familiar enough with the formatting
tools to fix it myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kst (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No labels on "Tags" table 

message: I will add it Written by Educator57  (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should add a usage tab! 

message: BOINC Project Forums et al.
Huh? No Link? No traditional reference (publication/Year/Place or similar)?
Is that supposed to be something? Wefa (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  what kind of reference is that? 

message: I’m very confused by the first sentence:
BBCode or Bulletin Board Code is a lightweight markup language used to format posts in many message boards and on sites based on MediaWiki.
I can think of two ways to parse that – either BBCode is … based on MediaWiki, or it is used to format posts … on sites based on MediaWiki. But both of these aren’t true: BBCode predates MediaWiki, and MediaWiki doesn’t support BBCode ([b]demonstration[/b]). So what is this supposed to mean? --Galaktos (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Used to format posts on sites based on MediaWiki. The websites are ran by MediaWiki, but BBCode isn't ran by MediaWiki Kailandosk (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  based on MediaWiki? 

message: The BBCode tags reference https://www.bbcode.org/reference.php (linked from the BBCode users guide link at External links) has no mention of emoticons or emoji or the given examples of :) or [:-)] which are listed in the summary Tags table on this page.
That row in the Tags table, starting with <img src="Smileys/Face-smile.svg" alt=":-)">, should be removed. Tantek (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emoticons not in linked reference