Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Html Formatter + Better BBCode Extension

edited September 2006 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
Hi All, 1. Is it advisable to install both "Html Formatter" AND "Better BBCode Extension"? (i mean will these extra options confuse/distract users?) 2. By installing both "Html Formatter" AND "Better BBCode Extension" will it causes some performance slow down or is the any stability concern? Sorry i am not very tech-savvy and i'd just like to make sure and perhaps choose only one from the above. Thanks forrestRain


  • Options
    They're two completely different formatting options; they don't both parse the same text, rather the user chooses what format his post is in. I see no reason that installing both would slow down your forum at all.
  • Options
    A further question on BBCODE & HTML please ..... In a forum where most members are not especially computer literate, would either of these be easier than others to use, do you think? (I'm thinking I don't need both really.) Is BBCODE safer than HTML? Further, do the "Extended text formatter" and "Friendly URLs" extensions add anything if you have the HTML formatter? (I don't think I really understand these 2 add-ons.)
  • Options
    I'd rather have an unclosed BBCode tag slip through than an HTML one.

    Plus no shift key required for typing square brackets as they are for angle brackets. I think the only shift required is [*] for lists. I even changed Inline Images on my own installation to use [image_##] instead of [Image_##] (look carefully, it is an "i" after all).

    Takes less knowlege of the tags and less typing to produce the same kind of thing with BBCode (easy insert bars notwithstanding). Some effects are only going to be possible with an honest-to-goodness HTML tag. But I'd guess the basic BBCode set is what formatting most people use the majority of the time.
This discussion has been closed.