I didn't say that you did; I was explaining the context of the post that I linked to.Ger wrote:I've never said such thing.Pony99CA wrote:debunking the claim that BBCode is as flexible as HTML
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.
And yet other blogging software and board software have managed to allow HTML and I haven't heard about them going up in flames.Ger wrote:That's as dangerous as anything, like MarshalRusty and Techie-Micheal explained.Pony99CA wrote: and later posts where I suggested allowing certain admin-selected HTML tags
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).
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.Ger wrote:Those are good RFC's. But still, it's BBcode, not HTML.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.