Previous Page | Next Page
- by Vague Rant at 1:22 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- Of course you're free to remove any functionality you like for your own purposes, but I'm not really following your reasoning. Besides hcs's point that there's no need to remove one tag to add another, your thought pattern seems to run something like "Well what have ramps ever done for me, the walking man?" You're right that it looks the same visually unless specifically styled otherwise, but the tag's functionality isn't in how it looks different, since it's deliberately not for cosmetic purposes.
It's not a big deal, I guess, just seems weird.
- by Captain Ron at 2:29 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- To hcs: Don't worry about liability; there's no such thing in free software. Thanks for all the help; I know it will work. I have that feeling. ;)
To Vague Rant: It looks like you're trying hard to convince me to leave the <em> tag (& trust me; it's really not working). This forum's the only one I've seen that supports the <em> tag (which is also weird because it doesn't support the <strong> tag). Maybe we should tell the crew at PunBB, phpBB & SMF, among other forum software groups to completely replace their use of <i> & <b> with <em> & <strong>; I don't think they'd comply (they'd just tell you to add the tags yourself).
Your argument seems to me that <em> is much better than <i> (it does all the same things <i> can do, which is nothing but slanting your text to an angle, plus it causes text readers to articulate their reading voice, even though the text will still be read & heard properly). Again, if I use <i> instead, the text reader will still read the word; other than voice articulation in readers, there's absolutely no significant difference & it's not the end of the world. I choose the simpler means (the same as other big forum software groups have done). So no matter how much you may present your cause, my requirements & targets that drive me to use the forum are different than yours. Different opinions for different uses; no need to try & convince me.
In any case, BB tags can always be modified later. Just let me do my thing & I'll contribute code to this forum as I go.
edited 2:40 PM EDT July 31, 2011
- by Vague Rant at 3:08 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- You're deeply mistaken about what I'm saying. Neither tag is better than the other. They're different and have different purposes. You can feel free to not cater to blind users, and you can feel free to justify it by saying others don't either, but at least understand why the tags exist before dismissing either. Or don't, it'd be nice to correct ignorance on the Internet once in a while, but I'm not about to bank on it happening.
- by arbingordon at 5:00 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- I'm just kind of curious where you found Vague Rant saying that <i> and <b> tags should be removed for <em> and <strong> tags.
I've read his post over a few times and I can't really see anything remotely close to your perversion.
Also, argument from majority isn't really *ever* a good one, but I guess it is crucial to those who present strawmen arguments.
- by Captain Ron at 7:10 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- arbingordon; I didn't say that Vague Rant said anything about abolishing <i> & <b>. He only said that <i> & <em> exist for the same reasons as <b> & <strong>, which I said that this forum doesn't support & that, since he supports greater accessibility for the visually impaired, that we should all formally complain to other forum software projects about their lack of emphasis tags (which would clearly lead to nothing, as you can still set whatever tags you want within whatever forum software you administer).
Vague Rant: I do understand why each tag exists; <i> is only a visual control of how text appears on screen, while <em> is both a visual & audible control of how text appears & is read. Your view seems to favor the <em> tag for greater accessibility (even though text will still be accessible through whatever screen reader is in use, regardless of audible changes in speech) & my view favors less redundancy for my own application of this software (thus my choice of removing one tag in favor of another).
But like I said earlier, my use of this forum is in an early stage & I'm just doing my own thing; if & when I decide to do something else to it, I'll do it. Once you decide to administer this forum on your own site, then you do whatever you want; I won't argue your decision on any change you may make, or any audience you decide to target.
Ultimately, arguing over an opinion doesn't result in anything constructive & you'll achieve nothing by trying to convince me otherwise, so let's just stop this. I've only joined this forum so that I could ask how to set it up on my own site & to help contribute certain modifications I may make; the last thing I want is an internet argument over something as insignificant as a choice between BB tags that can be changed at any time down the road.
Thank you, hcs, for enlightening me & thank you, Vague Rant & arbingordon, for your opinions.
edited 7:20 PM EDT July 31, 2011
- by arbingordon at 8:13 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- Maybe we should tell the crew at PunBB, phpBB & SMF, among other forum software groups to completely replace their use of <i> & <b> with <em> & <strong>; I don't think they'd comply
Your argument seems to me that <em> is much better than <i>
if I use <i> instead
When you word things this way, and argue against them you are implying that vague rant is suggesting you do these things (where, as far as I can tell, he has only suggested that you don't go out of your way to remove functionality because it has it's use).
There is no *instead* in his argument, yet you argue that point that he isn't even arguing for.
Your view seems to favor the <em> tag for greater accessibility
I'm not sure he made that point, again, it seems he has only queried why you would remove something when they can coexist just fine.
my view favors less redundancy for my own application of this software
Ok, at this point you're actually presenting an argument to counter his - it took long enough but at least it's there.
To follow vague rant's train of thought, you're figuring why bother with ramps when we already have stairs.
The fact that it is redundant doesn't really effect anything; as hcs already stated the amount of time spent processing the tags is insignificant.
A better argument here might be:
But like I said earlier, my use of this forum is in an early stage & I'm just doing my own thing; if & when I decide to do something else to it, I'll do it. Once you decide to administer this forum on your own site, then you do whatever you want; I won't argue your decision on any change you may make, or any audience you decide to target.
Simply because it is then much less of a real life example so much as a test case, and because no one can reasonably argue with the "I'll do what I want" mentality.
Lastly I must point out:
arguing over an opinion doesn't result in anything constructive
This is simply not true; a more accurate statement might be something like "arguing with bigots doesn't result in anything constructive", but to suggest that arguing over opinions never result in anything constructive is absurd.
- by Mouser X at 8:34 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- Seriously?! Come on guys, you know very well this is a stupid argument (regardless of which side you're on). If Captain Ron is smart, he either won't respond (I wouldn't. Let people think what they want. It's a stupid argument), or he will ignore it. As for me, more than likely, if a response comes to my post, it's unlikely I'll respond (what would be the point?). Mouser X over and out.
- by Captain Ron at 9:09 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- Thank you, Mouser X; I'm glad to see that you're sensible enough to point out the needlessness of this, as I need not go further with arbingordon's persistence & clear attempt to insult/offend me.
Anyways, back to something more sensible; I don't know if hcs can tell from my coding whether or not this will work, but I've made an attempt at adding a YouTube video embed tag.
...
$tags_search=array(
...
"/\[yt\]http://(.*?)\youtube.com/watch?v=(.*?)\[\/yt\]/i",
...
);
$tags_replace=array(
...
"<object style=\"height: 390px; width: 640px\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://\\1.youtube.com/v/\\2?version=3\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"><param name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\"><embed src=\"http://\\1.youtube.com/v/\\2?version=3\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" allowScriptAccess=\"always\" width=\"640\" height=\"390\"></object>",
...
);
$tags_decode_search=array(
...
"/<object style=\"height: 390px; width: 640px\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://(.*?)\.youtube.com/v/(.*?)\?version=3\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"><param name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\"><embed src=\"http://(.*?)\.youtube.com/v/(.*?)\?version=3\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" allowScriptAccess=\"always\" width=\"640\" height=\"390\"></object>/",
...
);
$tags_decode_replace=array(
...
"[yt]http://\\1.youtube.com/watch?v=\\2[/yt]",
...
);
?>
Halley; do you think that this would work, or have I done something incorrect that will prevent the tag from working? And pardon the way the forum software renders my code.
edited 9:21 PM EDT July 31, 2011
- by hcs at 10:36 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- It looks correct, but I am not a regex parser.
(also, this just is a silly thing, but please call me hcs, it saves you characters and my name isn't Halley)
edited 10:42 PM EDT July 31, 2011
- by Captain Ron at 11:04 PM EDT on July 31, 2011
- Sweet; I have a feeling this can be pulled off pretty well. Thank you for all your help. If it all works, I'll post back (& feel free to use whatever mods I make). ;)
And sorry about calling you the wrong name, hcs.
Previous Page | Next Page
Go to Page 0 1 2
Search this thread
Show all threads
Reply to this thread:
HCS Forum Index
Halley's Comet Software
forum source