Hey, I thought the DEL and INS tag wer available already in the posts.

I agree with DEL, INS, and Q tags, those would be important and certainly pose no such problems as the A tag. As for the others, they do not seem as important for me, but they should be allowed in general.

While your tags seem harmless to me, I think that with every addition of allowed tags, the chance of introducing bugs increases (more code, more bugs, even in trivial cases like this).

In my opinion, this site is about content and not about markup, and for me the currently allowed tags are more than enough to express myself. I personally only use a few tags regularly (<code>,<p>,<ul>,<li>), so for me even decreasing the amount of allowed tags (with the goal of decreasing complexity) would be no problem.

Revisions of nodes can easily be marked as such, with an 'update'-paragraph, as many people do.

I can see your point, but from what I understand the allowed HTML tags are checked using a regular expression. Adding a few extra tags would obviously increase the complexity of the regex, but that in itself should not increase the complexity of the site as a whole. I would imagine the current code to fix up broken HTML is much more complex.

The missing tags are obviously not all required, but I would like any semantic meaning behind the text to be allowed. No one would be forced to use the tags, but they would be there for those who want to impart extra metadata about their post.

If nothing else, it would allow a monk to style various parts of a post with more ease.

Actually, not it wouldn't :)=> Re: Proper nesting of HTML to be enforced (the code)

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"

I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).

** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

I can see your point as well (always nice in a discussion to understand each others points),

the thing is that I believe in simplicity, as opposed to 'featuritis'. In my opinion your proposal is in the grey area inbetween.

I don't agree that just adding a few tags won't increase complexity of this site:

• Adding other features might become more complex, because you have to take into account more information. Can't think of an example right now, but I hope the scenario is clear
• These tags might be exploitable in cross site scripting. For instance if the <del>-tag could be used to execute code on your computer, not allowing this tag would be better security-wise. Although the chances for this happening are very small, some browsers have a terrible track record in this field.

Also I belive that the class attribute should be allowed for any item.

Please add my favourites:

<BLINK>

and

<MARQUEE>

Note: Mozilla copes with <marquee><blink>Extra super combo FX!</marquee></blink> ! (don't try at home)

cheers!

1. Why is strike (HTML2) allowed, but s (HTML4) not?
2. Why are purely presentational elements like i and big allowed, but the important semantic elements abbr acronym address cite dfn kbd q samp var and the universal attributes lang title are still not?
3. What's the point of offering div and span without allowing the style attribute?
4. How is posted bi-di text supposed to work without the element bdo and the universal attribute dir?

Why are STYLE tags not allowed in posts?

Bi-di text is supposed to just plain work. AIUI, bdo is a kludge for when your data is backward, and if necessary, these characters:

‬POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING
‭LEFT-TO-RIGHT OVERRIDE
‮RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE
[download]

can be used instead.

Test:
Normal: My name is יצחק בן אברהם, but I'm not the famous gentleman of that name.
Reversed w/ override: My name is ‭םהרבא ןב קחצי‬, but I'm not the famous gentleman of that name.