allow some text formatting in subject lines

[ratcreature]

Title:
allow some text formatting in subject lines

Area:
entries

Summary:
Currently all html formatting tags are stripped from the subject lines. I would like to have some allowed that would make it possible to format words like italics, underline, or strike through.

Description:
While it makes sense to disallow most html in subject lines, even tags that are allowed in entries (nobody would want tables or embedded elements or anything like that there that would break layout and page logic), I don't see how text formatting could hurt. Several times now I have wanted to use strike through in particular in my subject lines, but it is impossible. I would like to be able to use a little text formatting there, mainly just the most common font style tags like strike through, italics, bold, underline, and perhaps sub/superscript.

Poll #7715 allow some text formatting in subject lines

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 69

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
32 (46.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (10.1%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
12 (17.4%)

(I have no opinion)
18 (26.1%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[lightgetsin]

Voting no because in most styles I've seen, subjects are already given some html attribute -- bold or heading, usually -- and doubling up html attributes like that can be inaccessible. E.g. A screenreader would not parse a strickthrough over a bold well, if at all, rendering the subject hard to understand.

[azurelunatic]

Do you think it would work if the existing HTML attributes were turned off before applying the desired emphasis, and then turned back on after?

[lightgetsin]

Maaaaaybe? I've never tested that. The issues I've seen with rendering multiple html attributes (and often with transitioning from one to another) are so varied and inconsistent, I suspect there's some overarching problems with parsing that are just bad programming. It's worth looking at, though.

[lightgetsin]

Quick and dirty testing.

[msilverstar]

IMNSHO, Dreamwidth HTML is very clean and reliable.

[lightgetsin]

...Yes? I was talking about screenreader programming.

[feathertail]

Voted "yes with changes" for these accessibility considerations.

[deborah]

I voted "yes with changes" which means that before we decide to implement this, we do extensive testing of likely use cases with a wide array of screenreaders and see what we get. (Also we decide what the appropriate behavior for the crossposter should be.)

[lightgetsin]

Huh. Three out of four strings I tried worked fine, the fourth went all wrong for no reason I can immediately discern.

[denise]

Computers are amazing, labor-saving devices that make our lives easier. *nods firmly*

[azurelunatic]

[19:03] <Azz> send computers not actually being helpful to hEll
[19:03] * RWHell sneaks out a scaly hand and grabs computers not actually being helpful!
[19:03] * RWHell 's depths emit a sudden roar as it expels student web portals, student web pages, and what happens when the former are better-designed than the latter. (stayed in Hell for 74 days)

[voldsom]

I think the issue with turning off existing HTML attributes and applying the desired emphasis is that if the emphasis matches the base attribute, you end up with no change. While not for titles, what I've seen in longer passages of text is a reversal of HTML attributes. So you have a long body of text in italics, and when the author wants to re-emphasise and individual word, they de-italicise it. (Ow, my English)

I can't figure out if there would also be a problem with disabling/reversing the existing HTML attributes if they are style based. I'm not familiar enough with how the options in CSS interact with HTML attributes.

[matgb]

I agree with this, plus it'd make compatibility with other sites harder, feedreaders, LJ crossposts, etc might break in interesting ways. On the rare occasions I've wanted to emphasise a title, I've *bolded* or _underlined_, given certain other sites are now popularising that notation anyway, that should be enough.

[ratcreature]

I don't see how it would make crossposts much harder. Syntax here is different anyway, e.g. the crossposter needs to translate "cut" to "lj-cut" and so on and of course post length limits differ, so it's already not 1:1, I don't see why it couldn't also just strip out the font formatting for the subject line in the crosspost when it does all that other stuff.

[pauamma]

Hypothetical example: suppose I notice a serious mistake and start blaming bradfitzindrag for it, only to find out later that I'm the idiot who made that mistake. I might post something recounting the event with a subject like: In which <del>bradfitzindrag</del> pauamma is an idiot. With that tag stripped on crossposting, the subject gets another meaning, probably unintended.

[montuos]

As long as the technical difficulties can be resolved, I totally covet strikethrough, italics, and sub/superscript. I also miss being able to format usernames, which I am able to do in LJ.

Neither bold nor underline would be useful to me since bold is already part of the header style subjects use, and in my LJ style the subject lines are links, so neither attribute would show up for me anyway.

[ratcreature]

Yes, I miss the username capability too.

[jazzfish]

I think that's an exhaustive list of the things I'd like to see in the header, so, +1.