Bitcointalk BBCode New Feature - The Hobbit Header!

[tspacepilot]

^^ Yup, you got him!

OK, I "fixed" it. Your post will parse to an error message if your table code is seriously messed up like this. Don't freak out if a long post disappears due to this -- it'll all still be there when you go to edit it.

theymos, I know that the BBCode parser in FluxBB disallows invalid BBCode. Can't you check if there is an option for that in SMF (or if you can make one)? Might be something worth checking out.

That's not supported in SMF because:

Also, I doubt it's a bug, to parse a tree all you need is a stack.

SMF's bbcode parser is ad hoc, not using any standard parsing method. It doesn't create an AST, even conceptually. So it's incapable of properly detecting syntax errors.

But you figured out some way to find the error in the OP anyway so good job.  And I like that you're using the software to enforce the "rule" not to fuck with the forum layout.  And I think it was a good find by ndnhc---I hope someone tips him for it.

[el kaka22]

Code:

[table][tr][td]

This is a new bbcode feature, that allows you to make upside down posts. :)
Adds up an additional area on the top of a post or OP, the content of which comes from the last part of the post. Nicknamed the hobbit header (HH) after ndnhc ;D

The code:
[code][table][tr][td]Second part[/center][hr]First part or header.

Pros:
Fun.
Unique.

Cons:
Could be annoying.
Have to scroll down to find the "Quote" and "Reply" stuff.

Advice:
When you use it, keep the top part short.


[/center]   Inventor : Bilbo Baggins        This is a Hobbit Header!  by ndnhc[/code]

Your post is invalid and when I add [code ] (without the space) it is the real content... Also the new code affects my signature and I need to change to another version I won't be affected from payments?

[Mitchell]

...
SMF's bbcode parser is ad hoc, not using any standard parsing method. It doesn't create an AST, even conceptually. So it's incapable of properly detecting syntax errors.

Man, SMF is seriously fucked up.

Your post is invalid and when I add [code ] (without the space) it is the real content... Also the new code affects my signature and I need to change to another version I won't be affected from payments?

It doesn't work anymore as theymos "fixed" the parsing method SMF uses.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

BBCode sucks. Should stick with copy and paste HTML. BBCode is like for the lazy, non-techy people who think HTML is a programming language.

[tspacepilot]

BBCode sucks. Should stick with copy and paste HTML. BBCode is like for the lazy, non-techy people who think HTML is a programming language.

It's also for a techy person like me who decides to go ahead and take advantage of, say, bold rather than *bold* in a forum post.

<strong>bold</strong> doesn't work!

[Leeroy Jenkins]

BBCode sucks. Should stick with copy and paste HTML. BBCode is like for the lazy, non-techy people who think HTML is a programming language.

It's also for a techy person like me who decides to go ahead and take advantage of, say, bold rather than *bold* in a forum post.

<strong>bold</strong> doesn't work!

In that case, I disagree. 7 characters to parse to <b></b> is equivalent to typing <b></b>. You're not getting any advantages there. With *this* at least you don't have to type 7 characters to accomplish the same thing.

In fact, if something like that was used (that didn't take advantage of HTML-like tags), you probably wouldn't see crummy parsing happening anyway. It would be easier to read, too. I'm more partial to Wikipedia's ''' for bold and '' for italic (and ''''' for bold italic) in a forum setting.

[tspacepilot]

BBCode sucks. Should stick with copy and paste HTML. BBCode is like for the lazy, non-techy people who think HTML is a programming language.

It's also for a techy person like me who decides to go ahead and take advantage of, say, bold rather than *bold* in a forum post.

<strong>bold</strong> doesn't work!

In that case, I disagree. 7 characters to parse to <b></b>  is equivalent to typing <b></b>.

What does this mean?  The parser doesn't care how many characters it has to read.  Maybe you meant to compare [b] to <b>, but <b> is deprecated HTML for mixing presentation (style) with markup (structure), so nowadays we right <strong>.

You're not getting any advantages there. With *this* at least you don't have to type 7 characters to accomplish the same thing.

In fact, if something like that was used (that didn't take advantage of HTML-like tags), you probably wouldn't see crummy parsing happening anyway. It would be easier to read, too. I'm more partial to Wikipedia's ''' for bold and '' for italic (and ''''' for bold italic) in a forum setting.

You may be right that wikimarkup is easier to type, or more effiecient to type.  But,  and FWIW, I find BBCode more transparent for the casual user..  When I edit wikipedia I have to look up again and again whether the label comes before or after the link, how to do a header, etc.  This is because markup like =, ==, '', is concise but not mnemonic.  On the other hand I never forget [quote][code][url][b][i][u] even when I haven't used them for a long time.

[theymos]

BBCode is closest to HTML, so it makes the most sense when doing complex things like tables (or any sort of block element like [code], [center], etc.). I prefer markdown or wiki syntax when doing more simple things like emphasis, links, and lists, though. The biggest thing I hate about markdown is that it doesn't work well with newlines; oftentimes you need to separate things by extra newlines (or two spaces after the end of a line) for them to work properly, which is annoying.

[tspacepilot]

BBCode is closest to HTML, so it makes the most sense when doing complex things like tables (or any sort of block element like [code], [center], etc.). I prefer markdown or wiki syntax when doing more simple things like emphasis, links, and lists, though. The biggest thing I hate about markdown is that it doesn't work well with newlines; oftentimes you need to separate things by extra newlines (or two spaces after the end of a line) for them to work properly, which is annoying.

I, personally, when it comes to markup languages, have had so little need for things like markdown.  I think it's a great idea, but for me, README files are just fine in plain text.  I don't really need them formatted.  When I need something in HTML, I just write HTML.  When I need a document, I just write LaTeX.  When it's anything else, plain text is usually just fine.  Note, I'm not dissing markdown, I just have never really used it apart from github pages.

@Theymos, what's the deal with the newlines?  I've never run into any issue, is it the old \r\n vs \n thing?

[theymos]

@Theymos, what's the deal with the newlines?  I've never run into any issue, is it the old \r\n vs \n thing?

For example, this:

Code:

Here's a link:
http://google.com

Here's a list:
* a
* b

will evaluate to this in markdown because it requires extra newlines:

Here's a link:http://google.com

Here's a list:* a* b

[tspacepilot]

Look at that!  I kinda couldn't believe it but you are right:

This is what I got back.

Code:

<p>Here's a link:
http://google.com</p>

<p>Here's a list:
 * a
 * b</p>

That is stupid I wonder why they did that?  Do you think it's because they were worried about false positives like this:

Code:

When I press shift and the 8 key at the same time my screen prints an
* symbol.  But that is in part because of my keyboard mapping ...

lol.  Like I said, I use LaTeX when I need real formatting for something other the web.

[ndnh]

He he thanks for fixing it.

It messed up the OP of the campaign thread, and it was difficult to find what was causing it. Thanks, it must be kind of difficult to fix that one.


Edit: Sorry for the trouble.