Aren't we a bit spoiled?
Ah, Nadir, your prompt replies keep me from getting myself in trouble via replies of my own that would be significantly more, um,
pointed than yours.
CathInfo members can accomplish everything for which they use--or want to use--the
new CathInfo
WYSIWYG word-processor, if they would use the default
new BBcode editor that's pretty much the same as on the old CathInfo default
BBcode editor [×].
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 addition
should have provided
user-level docuмentation 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 docuмentation 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).