Adam Ruppe Wrote: > foobar wrote: > > 1. common human markup such as: _foo_ (underline), *foo* (bold) etc, > > Yeah, that's a pretty good idea. I agree with the others that it > should keep the text symbols (especially since I've seen these > algorithms wrongly flag things *a lot*) but a basic implementation > is ok. > > > 2. parse BBCode. > > This probably isn't a good idea... unless it is a web input only > filter. > > So posts pulled off the news server are treated as plain text - no > BBCode parsing is attempted. But posts made through the website > may be parsed, and converted to plain text before being forwarded > to the news server. (Note that I use my beloved mutt mail client > for reading the newsgroups myself, so anything that would break > plain text email browsing is a no.) > > I already have pretty decent bbcode -> html and html -> text > functions in my bag of toys, so regular participants never need > to know what kind of input was used. > > It would let web users feel more at home without impacting > everyone else. > > > The only downside I see is if people think bbcode is accepted, > someone might write it in their newsreader or email client, where > it won't be parsed. I don't want the groups to get filled up > with bizarre markup everywhere, but, the kind of users who use > email clients and newsreaders probably won't make that mistake > anyway. > > > So yeah, let's give it a try for web posting and see if it works out.
Just to clarify, I don't want text posts to be filled with lot's of markup either. BBcode was just an example of a light-weight markup which is familiar to web based forum users. other options could be markdown and restructured-text. Basically whatever is light weight enough to not bother text mode users and is also useful enough when parsed by your web reader to convert code into those awesome "compile & run" boxes. We could also support just a tiny subset of BBCode (just the [code] tag), so that code snippets would be identified without a fuzzy guessing algorithm.