I don't think you can change the color or size (except the moderators) however you can find these tips useful.
http://typophile.com/filter/tips

When you write a new post/comment, there are some instructions for basic formatting, right below the 'Comment' box. (Actually right there, between the box and the 'Preview'/'Post' buttons. ;)

Dav

Allowed HTML tags are listed below the comment box. Some, but not all, of the formatting options you request are available.

And as this topic has been brought up:
Can we have some more HTML elements, please? blockquote, first and foremost. The availability of del, ins or abbr would not be amiss either.
And as this is a typographic forum, I can see quite a few reasonable applications for i and b: Not every italicization is meant to be an emphasis.

How about simplifying them so you don't need to use funky tags? For example, I belong to a few forums, and to make something bold I only need to put a double underscore before and after the word.

Who would be the person responsible for implementing a simplified version of the current old fashioned HTML style?

Christopher, my guess is that you should try to contact someone at Punchcut:

http://www.typophile.com/contact

(You can also get there by following the link that says "We want to hear your feedback" at the very bottom of this page.)

funky tags … old fashioned HTML

C’mon, give it a break! :D

Nothing to be afraid of:
http://reference.sitepoint.com/html/elements-text-formatting

If you find remembering/typing HTML too complicated, you can always use tools like TextExpander, RapidoWrite or Typinator. With them, you can type “__” or whatever you have configured, and it will automatically replace that with <strong></strong>, and even place the cursor between those tags, if you want so.

Discussion of this topic is long overdue. Pick up a bone.

Really, HTML syntax is a positively archaic ancestor of the simplified text formatting the rest of the web moved on to years ago. Wiki-style syntax is the future for things like bold and italic. By comparison HTML sytax is not merely "too complicated", it's primitive and obsolete. Typing two underscores or two inch marks is much easier, and it makes a lot of sense.

Typophile and Punchcut are clinging to a standard that will soon be redundant. For a community that is supposedly type central, this kind of thing started to get embarrassing several years ago.

If you find remembering/typing HTML too complicated, you can always use tools like TextExpander, RapidoWrite or Typinator. With them, you can type “__” or whatever you have configured, and it will automatically replace that with [strong][/strong], and even place the cursor between those tags, if you want so.

He shouldn't have to resort to such ludicrous methods and neither should anyone else.

Can we have some more HTML elements, please? blockquote, first and foremost. The availability of del, ins or abbr would not be amiss either.

I think we should have more elements like that but not in HTML please. Let's move with the times.

And as this is a typographic forum, I can see quite a few reasonable applications for i and b: Not every italicization is meant to be an emphasis.

That's an arbitrary and not very meaningful distinction. i tags produce the same formatting as em, and b tags produce the same formatting as strong. What's the point? None that can be discerned, except b and i are to type. Nobody reading it will see any difference. Besides which b and i are ageing, non-standard, non-compliant Mozilla extensions.

C’mon, give it a break! :D

C'mon and give users a break, and move with the times. No wonder typophiles and the type industry hang onto outmoded terminology like "sans serif".

Pick up a bone and throw it into the sky. Watch it spin off into space.

j a m e s

I think we should have more elements like that but not in HTML please. Let’s move with the times.

Cool, daddy-o. Standards are for squares, right?

We are already part way there with some wiki syntax having already been adopted. For example, when you upload an image to the Typophile server, it gives you the hosted image element in convenient square brackets, with simple, easy-to-use img:name.gif syntax instead of the cumbersome and time-consuming href="yada-yada.gif".

Does anybody seriously want to revert to HTML IMG tags?

I didn't think so.

Here's an example of wiki syntax from my WP user page.
This:

Produces this:

Move forward on this one. Pick up a bone...

j a m e s

@Charles: Cool, daddy-o. Standards are for squares, right?

You said it, not me.

Wiki syntax-enabled environments support HTML and CSS as well as wiki syntax. There's nothing wrong with existing standards, but the game has to move forward at some point. Wiki syntax is an emerging standard. The web is in a period of transition, including Typophile already.

You can have your cake and eat it too :^)

j a m e s

I now retract "but not in HTML please". Thanks Charles, very good point. Standards are good. Let's have more HTML, and more wiki stuff please.

j a m e s