More BBCode tags?

Just open for discussion really.



Unfortunately, the markitup menu is a little full now so I'm not sure where we'd put things on the menu.

If we divide code tags into one for just showcasing code and one for having it monospaced and whatever else vague needs, could we include in the former the functionality of including the code in a line of non-code text? Because that's something I'd like to see.
I'm not quite sure I understand this one. Would that be pre-written code bits made up of combining existing tags (that you maybe enable in game details) so you don't have to type out the full thing every time you need for example a floating spoiler tag?
This seems like a feature that sounds nice but has very limited usefulness. I wouldn't be opposed to it at all but I don't think it would see much use.

Could that theoretically be combined with character sheet integration, so if I type [roll="Stealth"]Stealth[/roll] or whatever the correct formatting would be, it would search the respective user's character sheet for a "Stealth" tag inside a roll table and roll that?

Actually, I just realized that gets further complicated if a user has more than one character sheet... Might not be that easy

I'm not sure I understand. If you're asking whether pre would escape in the same way as code, then yes - I think it must (basically it'd be code but with styling).
Intersting idea. I was just going to ask people to define a bunch of useful class shorthand and hard-code them.
Yeah. Honestly? I'm not sure how useful it would be either.

Basically, now if I write:

it displays as:
rather than as:
(Although I did just spontaneously, in trying to show what I mean, come up with a workaround, so it might not be super necessary...)

Oh, I see. Ugh. This is a mess. I don't want to break anything on the million posts already on the site, y'know?

What about:

If we don't surround the HTML 'code' tags in 'pre' tags (as we currently do) they will display inline.

The preview strips angle brackets but the real display does not?

Currently [ code]something with tags[/code] becomes:
<pre>
<code>something with tags</code>
</pre>

If we changed that to <code>something</code> it would display inline. But, of course, would not format as code visibly, aside from the brackets.

There is also a <samp> HTML tag for samples (also inline), which might be better than a new [ bbcode] tag, which appears to imply a limit to its use.

Jeez, I already take enough flak from the disgruntled . I ain't lighting a targeting flare by changing the code tag.

If the existing code tag functionality changes and it breaks people's character sheets or posts, it won't be your house the mob storms with torches and pitchforks. It'll be me they yell at.

The question is whether other tags are wanted, and what they should do. Are you suggesting that the bbcode tag be called samp? It seems like we'd be trying to teach users html.

The bbcode [ code] tag can keep doing what it does. I was just saying there are ways to get the inline effect that has been asked for.

Most users don't care what HTML the bbcode tags produce. But, when they emulate HTML behaviour (on an HTML platform) there is less surprise.

You could simply have the [ code] bbcode tag become <pre> in HTML which should do what it does now (the nested <code> tag probably does nothing, but some 'weird-browser' testing would be in order if we change it), but there is no need to change it, a little mess in the HTML is immaterial.

Adding a way to add a un-reset <pre> or <code> tag would be good. And adding a way to get inline <code> or <samp> tags would be very nice. Again, the users don't care what the HTML is, so we can generate any HTML tags from the bbcode. I was just pointing out there is a HTML for doing what we are looking for.

The flip-side of 'teaching users HTML' is that any who know HTML might have an easier (or less surprising) time when things adhere to the standards.

I still worry that new people coming to it will expect [ code] to do what you are describing [ pre] doing, but that ship seems to have sailed. Having [ pre] is better than not.

While we are looking at adding tags, can we revisit the issue of lists? They are not that hard.

They are pretty much straight tag translations:

---

It would be nice, and not much more complicated to allow nested lists:



Nesting rules for numbered (ordered) list are the same.

---

If we are willing, it should not be much extra work to extend this to support more complex numbered lists:



The start attribute tells HTML lists which number to start at. In this case the items would be 3 and 4.

---

<ol> also take a type attribute to say if it uses numbers, letters, or roman numerals. type="1" is the default, but can also be a,A,i,I for lowercase letters and numerals.

Also, the preview of the renders the HTML angel brackets within tables.
This might be an injection vector if someone can get people to preview dodgy stuff.

Would this work? With any other tag on the site, you can't nest them like that because the first [/list] would just close the whole thing, wouldn't it? The tags would probably have to be different, right?

It is 'legal' bbcode. But might need the parser to be taught that fact.

f tags support nesting. I plan to make future tags support nesting (where appropriate).

Sorry (not sorry) for the necro! I'm new to the platform and writing a bunch of wiki posts full of bulleted lists. Would love a simple way of creating unordered indented lists, even just single layer with no nesting. Numbered lists would also be cool, too, but not as important for me personally.