Talk:BBCode

possibly improve this?

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)

DMWhiteDragon 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed the XHTML references to more up-to-date variations. Fixed the spacing on the image tags. Added a alt for the img tag (to keep it closer to spec) EDIT: also made sure the b and i tags are in there aswell as the strong and em tags (to save any arguments), the u tag however is completely depreciated in XHTML. Source: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_u.asp Quote: "The u element was deprecated in HTML 4.01. The u element is not supported in XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWhiteDragon (talk • contribs) 05:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your alt element is semantically incorrect though. Alt elements aren't for telling you the name of the image file being linked. They're for giving you a description of or textual representation of the information provided by the image if you are unable to see it for any reason. It's also optional in HTML and (at least in phpBB as of 2020) in BBCode as well.

More generally: Why are we trying to compare the fixed-point-in-time 1998 BBCode to the moving goal post of modern HTML? What does anyone get out of that and wont that make this page require constant updates? I would suggest an apples-to-apples of same-era BBCode vs HTML. If you want it to be of historical value probably go with 1998, the origin of BBCode. If you want it to be a modern reference then both columns should be made to match todays implementations and updated regularly. 2601:1C0:6700:25A9:3A07:4982:393C:D5AA (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Apoc2400

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)

somebody fix this please

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).

I reworded the whole phrase. MrHen. 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HTML

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)

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)

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

I thought you could use either set one being logical <em> and <strong> and the other being physical <b> and <i> when you use physical it is always bold or italicized but when using logical it would use browser defined formatting. so if you used <strong> 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 <em> 71.94.14.108 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Username

I heard there is a code where u can make it say the name of the users who reads ur message, so every users sees their name! Is this possible, I seen it once... RealG187 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's possible, it's an extension. See if you can find the site you found it on, and ask them (or check the site's wiki article). Hope that helps!

-- trlkly 18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is BBCode a lightweight markup language ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who invented BBCode ?

Is there an information who invented BBCode? 77.46.247.176 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was just a variation of html that happened slowly over time, and then someone just gave it a name (in a forum package, no doubt) 220.101.108.93 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it evolved because earlier systems had to filter out < and > to avoid causing html problems. For an example of what can happen, check out MySpace^[1].

-- trlkly 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

...and because programmers were too stupid and lazy to write HTML filters. It doesn't solve the problem (if it's done badly it's still not impossible to find BBCode that produces dangerous HTML; if it's done well then there was no reason not to use a subset of HTML as the input) and it introduces a whole lot of new problems (every site uses a different incompatible implementation). Marnanel 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of reason not to use a subset of HTML. If it looks like HTML, people will expect it to work like HTML, even though what you'd be providing would probably be nothing like HTML. --203.173.153.34 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So you write underneath "Allowed tags are: <i> <b> <a>..." rather than making people have to learn a whole new system which works a different way on every damn site. It's not "nothing like HTML", it's a perfectly functional subset of HTML. I appreciate that there are reasons why people use BBCode (I don't imagine that they randomly decided to invent such a thing on a whim); I'm just saying that in my opinion their reasoning was generally flawed: it doesn't close any security holes, it doesn't save any effort for the programmer, and that it doesn't make life any easier for the user and in fact often makes things harder (because, for example, it makes it generally harder to copy and paste between sites) and making things harder for the user without a very good reason is generally a very stupid idea. However, it does also occur to me that I'm not really improving the article by discussing this here and so I should stop. Marnanel 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I though it was initially called Ubbcode, named after the forum that used it first(or at least quite early).

Also, it is NOT easy to write a html filter, since you don't know what crazy tricks browser vendors will add. I think it is a wise idea to make a very locked down instruction set that you got full control over if you want to prevent bad behavior. But writing a BBCode parser is NOT the easiest thing in my opinion. I have tried more then twice and belive me, it is at least as hard as a compiler parser for c++ or something similar. There is many contexts for when things is allowed and when they are not. Also, you plain don't get the luxuarity of refusing bad input, you will be forced to return some sort of html in the end. Also, even 100 % completely valid code might have unwanted behavior that might need special treatment, like embeding an url that will run scripting when visited. And this is for completely parsing the code into logical datastructures and then outputting them. It is just not going to work out in the end with "easy" replacement rules, like regular expressions, imo a full parser is needed.--Henke37 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BBCode was devised to provide a safer, easier and more limited way of allowing users to format their messages. Programmer convenience was certainly another factor, as BBCode is very simple to implement.[citation needed]

BBCode is not very simple to implement safely, i'm the coder of the pecl implementation of BBCode, and, it even if it's not safe, it's already quite complex (on error correction sections - because it's written by human and must be error tolerant).

Furthermore, you must have strict rules about nesting, and error handling

"The simple" implementation often relies on regular expression replace. This is most of the time unefficient and can lead to errors because most of the regular expressions made for bbcode are too permissive.

The "only" way to work with correct bbcode is by working with parsing, tree building, error correction, and output string construction.

I hope my contribution can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.7.155 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The first time I encountered BBCode was on a UBB board (Ultimate Bulletin Board, I think), back in 2000. Most forums before that were in the farily plain tree-style. I'm inclined to think UBB are the progenitors of BBCode.213.113.161.102 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia Support BBCode?

Thanks.

Regards,

Luna —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

External Links

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)

I removed two external links as they merely said the same as each other and the content of the article. The remaining link contains more detailed information on the subject and hence remains. I see it as "Further Reading", whereas the other links told the reader little more than they could learn from the article. For the record, the article should not be expanded to include the details in the remaining link, since this is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia should be explaining. It's an introduction, not a full reference source. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I do not like this example: [url=http://example.com]Example[/url] The reader is expected to notice the subtle difference between the capitalized and non-capitalized spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.158.67 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Say how to quote "["

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)

List of Implementations?

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)

url tag new tab

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)

No labels on "Tags" table

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)

We should add a usage tab!

I will add it Written by Educator57 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

what kind of reference is that?

<ref>BOINC Project Forums et al.</ref>
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)

based on MediaWiki?

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)

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)

Emoticons not in linked reference

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)