Re: BBCodeParser (another CVS commit)

The short story is that the Text_Wiki folks showed various levels of no interest in correcting or validating the input. It's currently not even equal to the "stable" version of BBCodeParser. Internally, Text_Wiki simply isn't designed for code validation or correction. I think that I'm simply aiming for a less tech savvy user base than they are. If they change their minds, it would take some work, but they can copy-paste my parser and/or validator into Text_Wiki (with proper attribution). If they can do a reasonable job passing BBCodeParser's broken-code unit tests, we can talk. This would be much easier if proper XML notation was a law of physics, but it isn't. ~Seth On Oct 19, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Helgi Þormar wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:35:08 +0000, Helgi Þormar wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:21:47 +0200, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

* I've attempted to maximize BC, but here are the only ways in which BC is broken (to my knowledge):

Hi, If this is the case there will have to be a HTML_BBCodeParser2 package as BC is not allowed. It will be possible to mark BBCodeParser as superceeded by BBCodeParser2 on pear.php.net

Well it's okey to break BC if it was documented in the right way but implemented in the wrong way, thus resulting in wrong output, I've not followed the thread all the way through, but is the case now ?

When I think about it, what happened to the good idea Bertrand had, about using Text_Wiki_BBcode as the base for BBCodeParser, to keep duplication down and at the same time not kill this package for existing users ? - Helgi --PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php