phpBB Missing Features ?

General discussion of development ideas and the approaches taken in the 3.x branch of phpBB. The next feature release of phpBB 3 will be 3.3/Proteus.
Forum rules
Please do not post support questions regarding installing, updating, or upgrading phpBB 3.2.x. If you need support for phpBB 3.2.x please visit the 3.2.x Support Forum on phpbb.com.

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by MichaelC »

And iframes to name just two issues out of a few. You can do too much with allowing HTML to be put on a page after being submitted by Joe and Josephine public and not all administrators would be fully aware of the dangers so it doubt it would be added even with a disable/enable option.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
jsebean
Registered User
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:40 am
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by jsebean »

IIRC, phpBB2 had trouble with html in posts and security. I also say a big no to HTML in posts. phpBB needs to be secure and a leader in the industry for it, and doing good thus far.

And Archiving... why?? In my opinion it's useless and I really really hate it when i click a link on Google and see the plain, unformatted view. Google is constantly working to ensure their indexer works great, and as is phpBB sites index perfectly fine in Google. We shouldn't have to work to make things look nice to the search engines, it's the search engines jobs to ensure best results and we are to make the site best for the users. As for mobile view, I think there are better ways too, phpBB should have a seperate mobile style for mobile phones (not google though). There are mods I think that do this. JMHO anyway on "archive" system.

Calender, MyBB has one IIRC when I used it and I found it really pointless. So for that, a plugin would be nice for users who want it.

WYSIWYG: I would really like to see come to phpBB, plugin or not, I would love to see it. :lol: There is still discussion going on about it so keep an eye out.

Trashcan: Not read up on soft delete but 3.1 will have it, IIRC it will "delete" posts but allow you to restore them.
-Jonah

PraetorianGuard
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:03 pm

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by PraetorianGuard »

Nvm I need to learn to read :P

User avatar
Dragosvr92
Registered User
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:08 pm
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Dragosvr92 »

utomo wrote: May I know why HTML Post is No ?
security reason because of JS ? I think we can disable it if necessary.
and by having the HTML post, I think we can reduce the server load to translate to BB code and vise versa.

CMIIW
Ugh.. yeah, i guess the <script> tag could be disabled.
I guess it would reduce some server load, but.. i dont think it uses anything big.
When you buy something, do you worry about getting the exchange pennies ?

I think the bbcode is better as it replaces small text stored in the database, with one that is a lot longer.

Its like using a php string to output the same data in separate locations, instead of adding it EVERYWHERE... saves some space..
Previous user: TheKiller
Avatar on Memberlist 1.0.3

User avatar
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by callumacrae »

TheKiller wrote:
utomo wrote: May I know why HTML Post is No ?
security reason because of JS ? I think we can disable it if necessary.
and by having the HTML post, I think we can reduce the server load to translate to BB code and vise versa.

CMIIW
Ugh.. yeah, i guess the <script> tag could be disabled.
I guess it would reduce some server load, but.. i dont think it uses anything big.
When you buy something, do you worry about getting the exchange pennies ?

I think the bbcode is better as it replaces small text stored in the database, with one that is a lot longer.

Its like using a php string to output the same data in separate locations, instead of adding it EVERYWHERE... saves some space..
As well as removing potentially malicious tags such as <script> and <iframe>, you would also have to check that the HTML is valid. For example, if I submitted the following as a post:

Code: Select all

</div></div></div>
Boom, layout is broken.

There is also the issue of attributes. There are all the DOM 2.0 JS attributes, to begin with…
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog

User avatar
Dragosvr92
Registered User
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:08 pm
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Dragosvr92 »

Well, it could let you post just a small ammount of html codes, like some blogs let you..
It is too annoying and messy to be in the core as i think better on it..
There could be made an extension that allows you to control the posted html.

Dis/allow a combination of html elements.... Specify the amount of allowed divs etc per post.. whatever :|
Previous user: TheKiller
Avatar on Memberlist 1.0.3

User avatar
Ger
Registered User
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:55 pm
Location: 192.168.1.100
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Ger »

That would result in some kind of white list with a lot of of limitations. In essence, the result would be some kind of BBcode, only with <> in stead of [].
Above message may contain errors in grammar, spelling or wrongly chosen words. This is because I'm not a native speaker. My apologies in advance.

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Pony99CA »

Ger wrote:That would result in some kind of white list with a lot of of limitations. In essence, the result would be some kind of BBcode, only with <> in stead of [].
Not quite. BBCode doesn't work well with optional parameters/attributes. HTML already has that capability built in.

See the How to Enable HTML? topic on phpBB.com for more information (specifically, my post debunking the claim that BBCode is as flexible as HTML and later posts where I suggested allowing certain admin-selected HTML tags).

Again, I'm not claiming that phpBB should allow HTML. However, providing a richer set of default BBCodes, a more flexible BBCode definition system (allowing optional parameters, for example), the features requested in the BBCode permissions and moving to all custom RFC and an import facility for Custom BBCodes would be nice.

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

User avatar
Ger
Registered User
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:55 pm
Location: 192.168.1.100
Contact:

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Ger »

Pony99CA wrote:debunking the claim that BBCode is as flexible as HTML
I've never said such thing.
Pony99CA wrote: and later posts where I suggested allowing certain admin-selected HTML tags
That's as dangerous as anything, like MarshalRusty and Techie-Micheal explained.
Pony99CA wrote:Again, I'm not claiming that phpBB should allow HTML. However, providing a richer set of default BBCodes, a more flexible BBCode definition system (allowing optional parameters, for example), the features requested in the BBCode permissions and moving to all custom RFC and an import facility for Custom BBCodes would be nice.
Those are good RFC's. But still, it's BBcode, not HTML. ;)
Above message may contain errors in grammar, spelling or wrongly chosen words. This is because I'm not a native speaker. My apologies in advance.

Senky
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Senky »

Pony99CA wrote:...However, providing a richer set of default BBCodes, a more flexible BBCode definition system (allowing optional parameters, for example)...
Optional parameters seem to be great idea! There have been BBCode refractoring somewhere, have not? Is it merged already? Would not be this idea worth implementing?

Post Reply