[RFC] GeSHi highlighting

[Jacob]

+1 for being kept as an extension.

Same here.

[brunoais]

+1 for being kept as an extension.

Besides, that's what it was intended for, right? (it was intended as a MOD and now we are thinking it as an extension. Basically the same)

[DavidIQ]

No. This was not an RFC to change the MOD to an extension. There is no need to have RFCs for that. This was an RFC to include it in the core.

[AliasM2K]

SMF do have syntax highlighting implemented at its core... So do many other bulletin board softwares. So, I dont think it is bad to implement it at core... Performance issues have to be considered.

[Erik Frèrejean]

SMF do have syntax highlighting implemented at its core... So do many other bulletin board softwares. So, I dont think it is bad to implement it at core... Performance issues have to be considered.

"BB solution xyz has feature abc" has never been an reason for something to be included in phpBB.

[imkingdavid]

SMF do have syntax highlighting implemented at its core... So do many other bulletin board softwares. So, I dont think it is bad to implement it at core... Performance issues have to be considered.

It might not be "bad", but ultimately, features are included because they will be helpful to the majority of phpBB boards. Only one small subset (i.e. programming-oriented boards) will even have a need for syntax highlighting. So, for features that only cater to a certain group of boards, we encourage them being implemented as extensions.

[tbackoff]

features are included because they will be helpful to the majority of phpBB boards. Only one small subset (i.e. programming-oriented boards) will even have a need for syntax highlighting. So, for features that only cater to a certain group of boards, we encourage them being implemented as extensions.

I'm interested in hearing how this is "helpful to the mjority of phpBB boards":

Code: Select all

<?php
print 'This is PHP code, a default feature in 3.0.x';
?>

Is this being removed in 3.1.x?

[DavidIQ]

I think it should. If someone wants true syntax highlighting they can drop in an extension. I personally don't like the fact that we have the "code=PHP" syntax available in the default package. Plus it messes up tabs.

[Erik Frèrejean]

features are included because they will be helpful to the majority of phpBB boards. Only one small subset (i.e. programming-oriented boards) will even have a need for syntax highlighting. So, for features that only cater to a certain group of boards, we encourage them being implemented as extensions.

I'm interested in hearing how this is "helpful to the mjority of phpBB boards":

Code: Select all

<?php
print 'This is PHP code, a default feature in 3.0.x';
?>

Is this being removed in 3.1.x?

I'm not a big fan of removing features unless there is a grounded reason for that (and an RFC was created for that ). But I quite frankly never understood why the php syntax highlighting was added in the first place.

[MichaelC]

features are included because they will be helpful to the majority of phpBB boards. Only one small subset (i.e. programming-oriented boards) will even have a need for syntax highlighting. So, for features that only cater to a certain group of boards, we encourage them being implemented as extensions.

I'm interested in hearing how this is "helpful to the mjority of phpBB boards":

Code: Select all

<?php
print 'This is PHP code, a default feature in 3.0.x';
?>

Is this being removed in 3.1.x?

There was a different mentality to which features should be added and who decided which features should be added then. It was probably a developer who thought it would be helpful to him, not thinking if it was helpful to the majority of the phpBB user base and there wasn't much discussion about things then for others to object. Now we focus more on who would it be helpful too and more people can object (or agree).