[Steam Community] Use Markdown instead of BBCode

[Aemony]

BBCode is friggin horrible to write in. Steam's Communities really need to support Markdown, which is the modern way of formatting stuff online, used by Reddit, Discord and other services and applications.

So my suggestion would be to investigate if Markdown can be implemented alongside BBCode, or if BBCode can be easily converted to Markdown, and then run with Markdown and shut BBCode down already.

[aiusepsi]

Yeah, got to agree: BBCode's syntax is fugly. The only feature regression is that standard Markdown (such as it is) doesn't have syntax for a spoiler, but Stack Exchange has an extension for it which looks like:

>! This is the hidden spoiler text.

Seriously though, links like [Steam store](http://store.steampowered.com) are just so obviously better than [url=http://store.steampowered.com]Steam store[/url] and **bold** so much obviously better than [b]bold[/b].

Since there's a pretty good mapping, converting between BBCode and Markdown shouldn't be too hard. For example, there's one here: http://jondum.github.io/BBCode-To-Markdown-Converter/

[Aemony]

Another solution to the spoiler syntax would be like some subreddits do, with [Spoilery text](#spoiler), which only requires changes in the CSS code. That fact basically makes the URL formatting in Markdown extremely extendable through CSS alone, without ever touching the Markdown syntax and code itself.

Also, why are there missing comments in this thread? I was pretty sure I saw at least two "+1" comments. Some Steam moderator removed them because.... reasons? O.o

[cinedine]

"Obviously" is rather subjective. If you are used to HTML tags, BBCode is superior in terms of clarity. It also has the undeniable advantage of not accidentally format something. The times I couldn't read a text because it was "marked" as strike through just because there were hyphens without a whitespace ...

Originalmente postado por Aemony:

Also, why are there missing comments in this thread? I was pretty sure I saw at least two "+1" comments. Some Steam moderator removed them because.... reasons? O.o

"+1" is considered spam and therefore deleted. If you have something to say, write it out.

[aiusepsi]

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

"Obviously" is rather subjective. If you are used to HTML tags, BBCode is superior in terms of clarity.

I guess I can take the point on subjectivity, but I really can't agree that BBCode is superior at all in clarity. A big part of the point of Markdown is that it mimics the sort of manual formatting you'd have applied to a plaintext email back in the day; it's supposed to look natural to everyone. I think you'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find a Markdown document that's less clear than a BBCode document.

It also has the undeniable advantage of not accidentally format something. The times I couldn't read a text because it was "marked" as strike through just because there were hyphens without a whitespace ...

This is an interesting case: the original Markdown spec doesn't have strikethrough[daringfireball.net] for the exact reason that it's kinda ambiguous. It's actually only a feature of some of the Markdown extensions. Otherwise, it's actually kinda hard to accidentally add formatting. The only other example I can think of is starting line with a number followed by a dot and thereby accidentally creating a numbered list.

[cinedine]

[quote=aiusepsi;135513901705493204 I think you'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find a Markdown document that's less clear than a BBCode document.

Wikipedia. Looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or at least Perl sometimes. ;)

It also has the undeniable advantage of not accidentally format something. The times I couldn't read a text because it was "marked" as strike through just because there were hyphens without a whitespace ...

This is an interesting case: the original Markdown spec doesn't have strikethrough[daringfireball.net] for the exact reason that it's kinda ambiguous. It's actually only a feature of some of the Markdown extensions. Otherwise, it's actually kinda hard to accidentally add formatting. The only other example I can think of is starting line with a number followed by a dot and thereby accidentally creating a numbered list. [/quote]

Depends on what kind of text you handle. Our issue tracking system uses markdown. If you paste error messages, the format will be all over the place. Funny enough you can escape it surrounding the text with "{preformatted}". Same goes for other block formats like code, quotes and stuff. So basically a mixture of markdown and markup.

None of them is superior, both have advantages and disadvantages. And the normal won't bother much to learn any of them. A WYSIWYG editor, or at least some shortcut buttons would be more useful for the general public.

[Roxor128]

Originalmente postado por aiusepsi:

The only feature regression is that standard Markdown (such as it is) doesn't have syntax for a spoiler

And that's a GOOD thing! Spoiler text is a major disruptor of flow when reading. It's a pain to keep bobbing up and down in and out of your flow state because you need to click on or mouse over something to find out what it says. It breaks up your reading very unnaturally, in contrast to the natural end of a page or post.

[Aemony]

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

"Obviously" is rather subjective. If you are used to HTML tags, BBCode is superior in terms of clarity. It also has the undeniable advantage of not accidentally format something. The times I couldn't read a text because it was "marked" as strike through just because there were hyphens without a whitespace ...

I'm quite familiar with HTML tags, and I see your point regarding clarity, but the web have progressed beyond ancient and cumbersome syntaxes to better fit the new users of the web.

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

Wikipedia. Looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or at least Perl sometimes. ;)

I dislike wiki markup/wikicode as well, albeit not as much as BBcode. There are some benefits, but overall I believe Markdown feels more natural. It's probably a consequence of Markdown's extremely limited focus. It focuses on the formatting of the content and nothing more, as opposed to wiki markup which also includes various design and layout aspects.

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

None of them is superior, both have advantages and disadvantages. And the normal won't bother much to learn any of them. A WYSIWYG editor, or at least some shortcut buttons would be more useful for the general public.

It's surprising that Steam Community doesn't even include a WYSIWYG editor for BBcode. The old SPUF forums have pretty much always had one.

But I digress. I'd actually prefer Markdown with a very simple WYSIWYG editor (using Markdown) at the side for regular users. I actually had to edit a wiki recently that only allowed you to edit the page using a WYSIWYG editor and I believe said editor was for regular old wiki markup and... Jeez, that ♥♥♥♥ was just aweful to use and confusing at hell.

[aiusepsi]

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

Originalmente postado por aiusepsi:

I think you'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find a Markdown document that's less clear than a BBCode document.

Wikipedia. Looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or at least Perl sometimes. ;)

That's not Markdown. So, yeah, not a Markdown document.

Depends on what kind of text you handle. Our issue tracking system uses markdown. If you paste error messages, the format will be all over the place. Funny enough you can escape it surrounding the text with "{preformatted}".

What issue tracker is that? I've never seen a Markdown flavour that uses anything like {preformatted}, the syntax in Markdown for a preformatted block is to to indent it, or surround the block with three backticks ``` (although, strictly speaking, the three backticks is an extension to vanilla Markdown, found in GitHub-flavoured Markdown and CommonMark.)

None of them is superior, both have advantages and disadvantages. And the normal won't bother much to learn any of them. A WYSIWYG editor, or at least some shortcut buttons would be more useful for the general public.

Sure, but the simplicity of Markdown syntax is definitely preferable if you were to edit it manually. Personally I like hybrid editors, e.g. **bolded** text appears in bold and with the asterisks, headings specified like so:

# This is a heading!

have heading styling and the leading #, etc.

[cinedine]

Originalmente postado por aiusepsi:

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

Wikipedia. Looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or at least Perl sometimes. ;)

That's not Markdown. So, yeah, not a Markdown document.

If you talk about "Markdown" as the specification, sure. But the idea is the same. Lightweight, "easy" to use while writing markup syntaxes. I've never come across pure Markdown anyway ...

I hardly see a benefit of changing things. If you get used to one, it feels naturally to write. Old arses like me who grow up with the early 2000 internet can format in BBCode blindly. It's mostly the site-specific stuff that is troublesome, but the same goes for Markdown or any other library. BBCode has the advantage of being more clear here. [blink]blinking text[/blink] is easier to remember and understand than +-+blinking text+-+ or whatever some "genius" will come up with.

Mainly I fail to see the benefit on changing something that next to no one uses and that is just as obscure for most parts as the other solution or doesn't add any benefits over plain text.

* These lists
* are just
* as readable

1. without special
2. formatting

And you see that THIS and *that* is emphasized without it being bolded.

Anyway, the biggest issue with Markdown is its vulnerability. BBCode is pretty robust and tested over the years. Markdown doesn't provide any filtering and get's worse while extending.

[aiusepsi]

Originalmente postado por cinedine:

Originalmente postado por aiusepsi:

That's not Markdown. So, yeah, not a Markdown document.

If you talk about "Markdown" as the specification, sure. But the idea is the same.

I feel like I'm about to fall down a semantic rabbit-hole, but honestly, to my ears this is an argument on the same level as saying someone shouldn't use apples in a recipe because you don't like pears. Like, man, we're not talking about pears. We're not talking about making a fruit pie here, we're talking about making apple pie.

I hardly see a benefit of changing things. If you get used to one, it feels naturally to write. Old arses like me who grow up with the early 2000 internet can format in BBCode blindly.

I grew up with late 90s Internet. We didn't have forums, we had Usenet, and WE LIKED IT. Perhaps a thing will snap in my brain when I turn 30, but right now, I generally don't consider "but this is the way we've always done it" to be, by itself, a sufficient condition for not changing something.

BBCode has the advantage of being more clear here. [blink]blinking text[/blink] is easier to remember and understand than +-+blinking text+-+ or whatever some "genius" will come up with.

"Blink" isn't on the list of things which Steam supports anyway. [blink]Or is it?[/blink] So that's kinda irrelevant here. In any case, a big part of the reason Markdown is popular is because it sticks to natural syntaxes; if you want to do something without a natural syntax, fall back to HTML. For spoilers, strikethrough, and god help us, blinking, BBCode-style [spoiler] [strike] and [blink] would be perfectly acceptable (being as they are, a sort of pseudo-HTML).

Mainly I fail to see the benefit on changing something that next to no one uses and that is just as obscure for most parts as the other solution or doesn't add any benefits over plain text.

* These lists
* are just
* as readable

1. without special
2. formatting

And you see that THIS and *that* is emphasized without it being bolded.

This is exactly the point of Markdown, dude. Those examples of lists that you wrote there are valid Markdown syntax for lists. The same thing in BBCode would be:

[list]
    [*]These lists
    [*]are just
    [*]as readable[/list]

    
without special
    
formatting

EDIT: Gah, I can't seem to make the [/list] and [/olist] appear on a line by themselves. Damn it.

The Markdown syntax is incredibly natural, the BBCode syntax is not.

Anyway, the biggest issue with Markdown is its vulnerability. BBCode is pretty robust and tested over the years. Markdown doesn't provide any filtering and get's worse while extending.

Markdown is just a format. There are a ton of different implementations of it out there. The only thing that's arguably worse about it is that standard Markdown syntax allows inline HTML, whereas BBCode can completely sanitise it off the bat by turning < into &lt; etc.. There are pretty much two approaches: don't allow inline HTML in your Markdown by doing the same thing, or running an XSS sanitisation pass after the fact. This isn't much different at all to the usual recommendations for accepting and displaying user-generated text.

Also the point should be raised again that Markdown is used on Reddit and Github; these are not tiny out-of-the-way operations. Markdown is used a lot.

[Aemony]

Originalmente postado por aiusepsi:

Also the point should be raised again that Markdown is used on Reddit and Github; these are not tiny out-of-the-way operations. Markdown is used a lot.

Not to forget Discord, which if it isn't already the most used VoIP software amongst gamers will shortly surely become it given a year or two. We're seeing Markdown get implemented in more and more services simply because it is that much better and more efficient than legacy BBCode.

And the simple fact that it is still extremely understandable even in pure text format[raw.githubusercontent.com] is a HUGE benefit. Markdown isn't like BBCode or even Wikicode/Wiki markup code that is often times painful to try and understand when presented raw. It's natural, understandable and beautiful in almost every scenario it is presented in.

The only issue so far with Markdown I've come across is the simple fact that Microsoft and the Office suite uses the same punctuations but for other meanings. E.g. *this is italic text in Markdown, but bold in Office applications*, while _italic text in Office uses underline_.

But said issue can just be ignored and really have no relevance in this discussion at all.

[TheDeadSkin]

I hate markdown because its syntax is not intuitive. You have a crapload of symbols which have unobvious meanings which also changes from the count of symbols in a row or even from the context. I kinda prefer BBCode.

[Aemony]

Originalmente postado por TheDeadSkin:

I hate markdown because its syntax is not intuitive. You have a crapload of symbols which have unobvious meanings which also changes from the count of symbols in a row or even from the context. I kinda prefer BBCode.

> Markdown treats asterisks (*) and underscores (_) as indicators of emphasis. Text wrapped with one * or _ will be wrapped with an HTML <em> tag; double *’s or _’s will be wrapped with an HTML <strong> tag.

That's **pretty much** the only commonly-used symbols in Markdown that changes from the count of symbols in a row. You *also* have the headers #, ##, ###, ####, obviously, but it's rather intuitive that a subheader have more ### than a header.

# Table of Contents

## Technology

### Computers

#### Motherboards

#### Hard disk drive

### Cars

#### Engine

#### Fuel

## Nature

### Ecology

### Global Warming

Do you really think that the above syntax is *not* intuitive?

How about an unordered list?

# To Do

* Finish the project

* Beat Dave in something

* Study ITIL Foundation

Or an ordered list?

# Wishlist

1. KeeperRL

2. Shadows: Heretic Kingdoms

3. Secrets of Grindea

I mean, if you were able to read this whole comment then congratulation, you completely understood Markdown intuitively without having to decode HTML-based formatting.

I feel as if some people misunderstand what Markdown is and isn't. Markdown isn't some huge and incomprehensible coding language and syntax that includes a ton of stuff. It basically includes *only* the most basic of text formatting stuff:

Block Elements

* Paragraphs and Line Breaks
* Headers
* Blockquotes
* Lists
* Code Blocks
* Horizontal Rules

Span Elements

* Links
* Emphasis
* Code
* Images

And that's about it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Vas]

I hate markdown, its terrible.

In the above example of markdown, # Table of Contents, what if I use # somewhere not meaning to start a header, hmm?

-h1]Table of Contents[/h1]
-h2]Technology[/h2]

Whats so hard about that?

Also, how do you do a table in Markdown? Oh, you don't.

[Aemony]

Originalmente postado por Vas:

I hate markdown, its terrible.

In the above example of markdown, # Table of Contents, what if I use # somewhere not meaning to start a header, hmm?

How often does a line/row start with # in natural text? I mean, really? I'm an avid reader and I can't think of a single example. Even law paragraphs starts with § and not #.

I don't think you understand that the # needs to be the very first character of the row to indicate a header. If it isn't at the very start of the paragraph then it won't be interpreted as a header.

None the less, escaping one is as easy as typing a \ before.

Originalmente postado por Vas:

Also, how do you do a table in Markdown? Oh, you don't.

How often does tables come up in Steam's discussions? Oh, almost never? Does Steam's BBCode even support tables?

None the less, implementing support for tables is a non-issue as the "Github Flavored Markdown" (GFM for short) specs includes them, so adding support for them would be as easy as copy/pasting the relevant syntax interpreter.