Aren't we a bit spoiled?
, Nadir, your prompt replies keep me from getting myself in trouble via replies of my own that would be significantly more, um, pointed
CathInfo members can accomplish everything for which they use--or want to use--the new
word-processor, if they would use the default new BBcode editor
that's pretty much the same as on the old CathInfo default BBcode
Hasn't Matthew already written--more than once--that the Web-based WYSIWYG
word-processor used on the Simple-Machines Forum that's the software platform for the new CathInfo was an extra-cost addition
paid for by Matthew?
I assume that being an extra-cost
addition, its source code
is proprietary, i.e., not open source
[‡]. So Matthew has no access
to it for fixing alleged features that fail to work, or providing new features that CathInfo members would like to see & use. It even had he such access, it might not be a sensible use of his time in the context of his other responsibilities.
That written, the proprietors of the extra-cost
have provided user-level documentation
that could be post-&-pinned on CathInfo at no extra cost, describing how to use those features that work correctly, and identifying those others that don't. Expect me to be quite unforgiving of objections from proprietary vendors on that issue: I thoro'ly understand the issue and its arguments, having had to produce such documentation myself (albeit not for a word-processor).
Note ×: Except for the problematically permanent conversion of deliberately coded HTML entities
into the corresponding Unicode bit-pattern by the new (i.e.: SMF) BBcode
editor. But that irritation does not
limit what CathInfo members can accomplish when they use that editor to write either:
their postings, or
• their replies (ahem!
Note ‡: To restate the equation written by a venerated academic guru: Programs = Algorithms + Data Structures (Niklaus Wirth: 1976).