Preferred Post Formatting?

  1. Choice:

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

  • Avatar of Nevir27 Nevir27 Nov 20, 2008 at 22:39 UTC - 0 likes

    I'm a huge sucker for markdown as well

    Having extremely readable raw text and nicely formatted results makes for a better experience!

  • Avatar of syntax76 syntax76 Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44 UTC - 0 likes

    I for myself prefer plain text or BBCode, since I believe in good design and content which should follow the given design. Usually for posts this should be enough.
    But for any person uncommon with html or BBCode WYSIWYG or plain text may be the better way. And with WYSIWYG ONLY to give some base formatting in the given design.

  • Avatar of ChaosInc ChaosInc Nov 17, 2008 at 17:19 UTC - 0 likes

    BBC. Easy to use and is common everywhere, especially on the mod sites. You know how much of a pain it is to switch formats when updating on multiple sites? Copy/Paste FTW.

  • Avatar of Industrial Industrial Nov 17, 2008 at 17:14 UTC - 0 likes

    posts dont need formatting other then a way to quote and paste code

    edit: but if you must then textile.

  • Avatar of Dashsmash Dashsmash Nov 16, 2008 at 13:23 UTC - 0 likes

    I'd say Textile or Markdown - would be awesome to include these options.

  • Avatar of SilverFirefly SilverFirefly Nov 15, 2008 at 07:14 UTC - 0 likes

    TinyMCE is rubbish IMO. WYSIWYG with BBCode is the way to go - like the editor you get with vBulletin.

  • Avatar of Lykofos Lykofos Nov 14, 2008 at 08:19 UTC - 0 likes

    WYSIWYG annoys on me on forums these days. Personally I find its faster to use BBCode to format my posts instead of using the WYSIWYG approach. It tends to be more accurate too. Then again, I am used to HTML coding by hand (since WYSIWYG HTML editors tend throw in lots of crap tags) as I prefer my code to be clean. I have never used MediaWiki, then again, I have never posted or edited any Wiki articles although having got to used to both HTML and BBCode, I can probably pick up MediaWiki pretty easily. If I have an issue with BBCode (that is pretty rare) then plain text with some HTML tags works just fine.

  • Avatar of dsn dsn Nov 13, 2008 at 09:14 UTC - 0 likes

    Personally I favor MediaWiki however day by day I am forced to use BBCode in more places so I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day as long as I can worst case just use good old HTML. A problem with a WYSIWYG is we already have issues with JavaScript and CSS cross platform compatibility, adding another JS widget is just bound to create headaches down the road when we have new browsers or upgrades come in the future. We all know how much IE6 and IE7 are just a like when displaying HTML :P

  • Avatar of Allara Allara Nov 12, 2008 at 21:34 UTC - 0 likes

    WYSIWYG can be a problem for downlevel users, but there are some very good ones out there these days. For example, Telerik's Editor control (while certainly not free), is extremely powerful and very hard to break.

    That being said, I am familiar with BBCode, MediaWiki, and HTML, so whatever happens I can live with. Wiki markup is probably the easiest to work with of the choices, once you learn it.

  • Avatar of flarecde flarecde Nov 12, 2008 at 20:38 UTC - 0 likes

    I favor BBCode myself as it's relatively close to HTML, which I know, without the security risks of plain HTML. I've never been able to understand wiki style coding and it's never been intuitive for me.

    I find WYSIWYG editors to be too buggy or unpredictable most of the time.

    Could support multiple types though, this commenting system seems to. Or is that too much overhead?


Posted on
Nov 10, 2008
Voted on
313 times