COLORS by Name

I've always been a fan of emphasizing via italics, but it's certainly not as eye-catching as highlighting.

I get this. I spend a lot of my days working through spreadsheets and AutoCAD. While the latter is typically known for its black model space, I was always taught "paper is white, so should the model space be."

Let me interject a comment about trying to find ways to expand the ability to really mess up re-design a message beyond the already available options: In the early days of the cruddy new Wordpress software, there were hints that html was going to be available. In a strange twist, as moderator I always had access to use it, but I never wanted to, and it never was really implemented for members to use. However, the faint scent of html-use did waft through the forums, and without naming names, some daredevil(s) were trying to format lists.

Some will remember a bit of time when the avatars were suddenly giant images. It was pretty strange. It took HQ a few days to find out that errant html code, used without a needed CLOSE tag (the </ thing) had been skipped or entered wrong, that somehow caused a big snafu in the otherwise flawless code.

The message now? We have a nice variety of styles to use, why meddle with random outside suggestions for BBcodes? If it hasn't been said before, a core of delicious code that is left to a third party to re-think is a problem some computer owners might recognize. I suggest not going crazy to find a way to add a purple dot above the letter i.

My 2¢...

Steve,

I get that. I thought (for about 2 nanosecs - my photo is in the dictionary entry for "loose cannon") about whether or not I should post that, but it seemed that all this discussion of "color names" was missing that: w/o it, this thread doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want to change "font color", it doesn't matter what the "color name" is - you don't have to know.

OTOH, I doubt I will be using "highlighting" unless it is readily available directly. Not something needed a great deal.

And, lest it be missed, I do understand the dangers from your point of view, and your point is valid. I was merely reading through threads here, and thought that this one didn't make much sense w/o the note about BBCode - how else would you use a color name? - though I am somewhat more dense than most, and may have missed the obvious.

I did in fact get the highlight feature from tools included in the "Quick Reply" toolbox on this forum. The screen-print below shows where that tool is located. . . .



When I used that tool in Quick Reply and then went to the more detailed "Reply Box" to add other BBCode, I noticed the tags for highlighting. Those tags included the 1-pixel-wide red border. I did not like the red border, so I edited it out of the tag to get just the yellow highlight. This all happened in the first couple days after I joined this "new" forum.

I do appreciate Bp2go's cautions on exploring HTML or even CSS in these forums. And, for my own reasons, I have some strong incentives not to incorporate any HTML in my posts.

However, it was not I who introduced HTML or the CSS span tags into these posts. The forum software did that in multiple ways. First of all, if I use the BBCode version of IMG tags, the forum software converts those to HTML (with brackets) before I go to edit a post. There are other examples. When I first noticed that, I was a little disappointed.

I often use off-line BBCode editors that employ and render nothing but normal BBCode tags. (Yes, there are several versions of BBCode.) If I post something I've written on wildlife which employs links and some rather seasoned arguments, I often save to my own files a copy of that (sometimes lengthy) post. I began doing that in some of our wolf debates years ago because I found I had to repeat those links and arguments in multiple threads when various posters employed the same tired and fallacious tactics against wolves.

But since I am using an off-line BBCode editor to save a TXT or BBC file incorporating some BBCode tags, I do not want that document cluttered with HTML tags that will not render correctly in my BBCode off-line editor.

So to recap: I did not explore HTML tags until this software converted my BBCode tags into HTML.

Then I abbeviated the HTML or CSS into the most simple tags I could that would still render correctly in this software. Frankly, I do not want any HTML or CSS tags in posts I save on my own computer because they do not render in my off-line BBCode editors. But I find the highlight tags important enough in a few places to be used sparingly in this forum.