[RFC|Accepted] Updated BBcode engine

[callumacrae]

They're not advantages, they're just differences.

[brunoais]

More flexibility is an advantage, per-se.

[imkingdavid]

Why mine is better:

• Mine supports parameterized BBcodes. It is already prepared to allow a quote tag like this. jBBCode supports only as much as phpBB currently supports. A single parameter or no parameter.
• Mine is faster even if I'm not using it in it's most optimized way.
• Mine is prepared for stuff like (the extra spaces are for this forum not to parse it): [ name=abc]def]ghi[/ name] You just need to use the other option of making it: [ name="abc]def"]ghi[/ name] you can also use [ name="\"abc\"]def"]ghi[/ name] without any problems (it creates <tagname att="\"abc\"]def">ghi</tagname> . With jBBCode with this [ name=abc]def]ghi[/ name] you are stuck to <tagname att="abc">def]ghi</tagname>

I don't see how any of them are important

Why would extensibility, speed, and intelligent/correct parsing of tags not be important?

[brunoais]

Meanwhile, I already found another bug that exists in nbbc, jbbcode and in this BBCode parser (it was already known that existed in this parser, anyway). Which is this:

• This text should not exist.
• This text can exist

As you can see "This text should not exist." appears as a child of <ul>. I'm solving that in my parser.

[imkingdavid]

Actually, I have used that as a way to indent, and I'm sure others have done likewise. IMO it should remain for consistency; otherwise people could "lose" parts of their posts.

[EXreaction]

That could only happen if they upgrade and someone edits the post after the upgrade.

Allowing hacks to format text because of a bug in the parser that existed shouldn't be allowed IMO.

[imkingdavid]

That could only happen if they upgrade and someone edits the post after the upgrade.

Allowing hacks to format text because of a bug in the parser that existed shouldn't be allowed IMO.

Well, we should at least prep the Support team for support requests about parts of a post not being displayed anymore.

[JoshyPHP]

By the way, are there any existing tests for the current engine? All I see is one test in tests/bbcode/parser_test.php and a few cases in tests/bbcode/url_bbcode_test.php. I've looked into master and develop.

[imkingdavid]

By the way, are there any existing tests for the current engine? All I see is one test in tests/bbcode/parser_test.php and a few cases in tests/bbcode/url_bbcode_test.php. I've looked into master and develop.

What you see is what you get; at the moment, that's all I'm aware of.

[JoshyPHP]

Ok, thanks. It would be nice if someone was able to compile a list of desirable characteristics, if not specs, for the current engine or future solution. It would be even better to sort them out as "essentials" (e.g. "needs to allow custom BBCodes"), "nice-to-haves", and perhaps even features that could be phased out such as per-style custom BBCode templates.

Perhaps the fine people over at the 3.0.x Support Forum could chime in with the most common grievance about phpBB's BBCodes, or about the whole text formatting for that matter? MOD authors such as the authors of Advanced BBCode Box 3 may have some valuable input as well.