   request on an old request
  since we have this spiffy new forum (which i'm starting to like by the way) can we have some uniformity with the tags. ie.  and &lt; u &gt;can we make them &#111;ne or the other or both?
  Either way, I'd like to see all tags turned into virtual tags (ie not HTML that passes straight through) so that someday gdnet can become fully compliant with a modern web standard =-)   ;  You'd prefer that we stop supporting HTML and just use 'BBCode'-style tags for everything?   ;  I love that this forum supports HTML.   ;  I'll second the HTML goodness. I wish it wouldn't retranslate everything into brackets when I edit my posts, though.   ;Quote:Original post by superpigYou'd prefer that we stop supporting HTML and just use 'BBCode'-style tags for everything?The syntax of the tags doesn't matter to me, so much as the way they're processed. For example, inserting a closing-bold tag </b>here prevents the page from being conformant to any standards since it passes the code through. If it instead had only tags (whether bbcode-style of html-like or any other style) that it fully processed, such behavior would be detected and prevented (such that the lone closing bold tag would be converted to html entities to be displayed, or omitted entirely, etc). Another similar problem is the allowed overlapping of html tags that are (iirc) fine in HTML standards but not XHTML standards which are gaining popularity.   ;Quote:Original post by superpigYou'd prefer that we stop supporting HTML and just use 'BBCode'-style tags for everything?no, of course not. just for the b, i, u tags and any others that make sense.   ;  I always wondered why there was a ,  but no  (&lt;u&gt; instead) [oh].<br><br>Anyway, change it if you must… but it'll confuse the hell outta me. I already make posts &#111;n MSDN using GDNet tags (which get ignored) [headshake]<br><br>JAck