phpBB Missing Features ?

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

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA

Re: phpBB Missing Features ?

Post by Pony99CA »

Ger wrote:
Pony99CA wrote:debunking the claim that BBCode is as flexible as HTML
I've never said such thing.
I didn't say that you did; I was explaining the context of the post that I linked to.

The point was that allowing limited HTML is a lot more than "some kind of BBcode, only with <> in stead of []" (which you did say). The admin would only have to check which tags he wanted to allow, not create new codes themselves as he does with BBCodes.
Ger wrote:
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.
And yet other blogging software and board software have managed to allow HTML and I haven't heard about them going up in flames. :)

Plus, if you could give permission to use HTML (just like you can give permission to use BBCode), admins could allow only trusted users to use HTML. You'd still have the problem of quoting posts with HTML in them, but that could be solved.

But, again, I'm not lobbying to support HTML (as I said in the quote below).
Ger wrote:
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. ;)
Yes, which is why I used "BBCode" four times in that paragraph. My point is that making BBCode more powerful and flexible would obviate much of the need for HTML.

Silicon Valley Pocket PC (
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.

Post Reply