ok, here:
wrap text challenge:
[snip]
...I see. (Sorry, I somehow missed this, until the further posts.)
I'm not sure how I would (reliably) fulfil most of what you're asking for even in HTML. Without using explicit pixel-widths. In a way that works in all browsers. (Note, some new-fangled HTML5 that I can't recall
might allow this, but again at the cost that not all browsers will reliably enact it.)
Without that, even a BBCode enhanced with extra HTML tricks behind the scenes. (Like, conceivably, a [tag] could be allowed to be further defined as [tag width="300px"] or [tag width="50em"] or something. And I know that [table border="1"] isn't accepted on this particular board, but there may be something else that does this thing...)
Anyway, without that:
A) Wrap to the width of (an) image:
...possibly fit both into a [table] column and create a second column with non-breaking whitespace enough to demand as much as you can wish for to 'encourage' this first column to be as narrow as it can be. But that's a fudge. And may not work the same in all browsers (again). And would be horribly wasteful, as if anyone cared about bandwidth these days.
B) Wrap to (given) text:
...might be similar. Would be harder for text with spaces in (if you don't make all
those non-breaking), and the same problems.
C) Wrap to a width of 300.
...Easiest, if the board's main admin (that's Toady) or associates (Threetoe, primarily) allow the parsing of the "width=" as given above, probably by a custom rule although other administrators will probably have already worked out the best format for the custom rule regexp/whatever.
All without manually breaking each line. This would be good in a table too, where it is allowed to wrap tighter on smaller monitors if needed. If there is several columns.
This always was a thing, in HTML. Special purpose markup is used to
not do this (and these days I lose track of all the bells and whistles demanded by people who insist on pixel-perfect rendering, in an attempt to be exactly the same, when the original functionality was intended to be "render something like this, let the browser work out the best way of doing it". (And by even imagining that it's definitely going to be a web-page it leaves browsers like the old classic Lynx unable to comply...) But that's always been a problem.
(I once found a website I was asked to re-edit had originally been created by making a
screen-sized image and a "clickmap" emulating the hot-spots where hyperlinks would be, were it text and not just image pixels-of-the-text. Of course, it had assumed the size of the visible screen (or, rather, web-page canvas area), and you can imagine what it looked like on larger or narrower screens or in a non-maximised browser.)
Personally, I switch between a netbook and a latop, and host forum games. Making me aware of and motivated to dispay things well for a variety of viewers.
Good for you. As a past-master of the art (well, maybe I flatter myself), the image-mapping example above is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people demanding something that HTML was never intended to do... and BBCode is (at best) a subset of that.