Development Discussion Board

Another thing I just realized. Having defer on jquery requires all jquery-using script tags to also use defer, correct? Otherwise they may be executed before jquery. If so we need to consider what third-party js board admins may end up including in their boards and whether or not it will work corre...

The hosts phpBB suggests don't even support 5.3.

Bluehost: https://my.bluehost.com/cgi/help/386
Hostmonster: https://my.hostmonster.com/cgi/help/386
Fastdomain: https://my.fastdomain.com/cgi/help/386

I would like to suggest that you allow people to post RFCs in the 3.1 forum. Then whatever RFC isn't implemented by the time 3.1 is released then it should be moved to the 3.2 forum. Or even have only one RFC forum so that all RFCs are being discussed as if they are going to be implemented in the ne...

Make sure you look at the known issues for pie. There is one about serving the correct content type that will affect how it needs to be implemented. To make sure it actually works on every server you will probably have to use the php method.

I would suggest calling this a Rich Text Editor instead of a WYSIWYG. More than likely it won't be a true WYSIWYG. Here is a BBCode parser I wrote using javascript . It uses the same tags that phpBB has for custom bbcodes ({TEXT}, {SIMPLETEXT}, etc). It can convert bbcode to html and html to bbcode....

Talking with Igor it became apparent to me that the developers would rather be coding than working directly with the community. They like the idea of working with the community and providing ways for them to do it but at the end of the day they would rather write code. Which makes sense. The problem...

I don't know. Why don't you contribute hooks so that we can release 3.1? You're attitude is incredibly concerning. I hope the whole development team doesn't share this same opinion. You are saying I'm going to do what I want and if the community wants something they will have to do it. You are tryi...

There was some work on !ponies a while back that was suppose to be a feature request system. Finishing that would be a good idea and provide a way for users to vote on features they would like.

This is great

I won't address the comments on github just yet until the RFC is closer to being done. No point in picking over specifics in the code until there is a final goal in mind. What would be an example "setting"? I suspect a more generic label may be more appropriate. Agreed. I would like to see...