Preferred Post Formatting?

  1. Choice:

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

  • Avatar of Dashkal Dashkal Nov 11, 2008 at 00:32 UTC - 0 likes

    On further consideration I moved my vote to WYSIWYG. Much as I prefer to avoid js, a WYSIWYG formatter is simply easier to use. I do like the dual idea you mentioned, though.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 11, 2008 at 00:28 UTC - 0 likes

    Btw, we could support a dual TinyMCE-BBCode thing with

  • Avatar of Dashkal Dashkal Nov 11, 2008 at 00:18 UTC - 0 likes

    Voted BBCode as I've already learned it and it doesn't require me to turn on js

    Edit: Changed my vote.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 11, 2008 at 00:06 UTC - 0 likes

    moonwitch, that'd be plaintext, raw html, or WYSIWYG, really.

  • Avatar of Kaelten Kaelten Nov 11, 2008 at 00:06 UTC - 0 likes

    she lives! & Adminstrator
    Check out my new addon, OneChoice, it helps you pick quest rewards faster.
    Developer of Ace3, OneBag3, and many other addons and libraries
    Project lead and Mac developer for the Curse Client

  • Avatar of moonwitch moonwitch Nov 11, 2008 at 00:02 UTC - 0 likes

    The fastest, non-server-load-increasing option would be nice :P

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 10, 2008 at 23:56 UTC - 0 likes

    This is brought up because MediaWiki's format is horribly documented and doesn't have a proper grammar. There is no standard parser for MediaWiki in Python (or any language, for that matter). CurseForge/WowAce's custom parsing system for Wiki-format is very slow and inextensible. Trying to make it faster or extend it would take many weeks which I think could be spent better elsewhere.

    Instead of worrying about parsers and all, I think switching to a WYSIWYG format would be better overall, since (a) it's mostly done for us (b) overall, it's easy to use over wiki syntax.

    Some things to note that if we do implement a WYSIWYG system:

    • Alternative browsers _will_ be supported. Firefox 3.x+, IE 7+, Safari 3.x+, Opera 9.6+
    • You'd still be able to use Raw HTML


Posted on
Nov 10, 2008
Voted on
313 times