On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Hans <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/2/22 The Editor <[email protected]>: >> >> I think I know what caused this. I put a BOLTstripslashes on escaped >> output in order to allow javascript in the snippets. But here is >> another seeming way to do it. Let me know if this doesn't solve the >> problem for your application as well: >> ........ [snip] > > Dan - your hack makes the toggle javascript work again. But I don't > think this is the final solution.
I have had trouble with slashes. Admittedly. It's not easy because different servers work differently. If I could find a way to turn off php's tendency to add slashes, we could probably simplify things a lot in the core code. We've been able to get along ok by tweaking here and there. But it's not a perfect solution. I'm open to help. > I had a little experiment with adding a section including javascript > to code.snippets. I found that I could not add backslashes, they got > removed. I think it is essential to be able to add code unaltered to a > code page in general, and to code.snippets in particular. Backslashes > need to be preserved. Your character handling routines need to take > care of this automatically, without forcing an author to use special > hacks. Right. We're working that way. For the most part it works ok. Have you tried setting blockslashes: false in site.config? If your server is not adding slashes, this may help. > I am not sure why you use the <nolines> markup for the javascript > snippet. It should not really be necessary. Anything in a 'code' page > should be treated as code. The only exceptions are the skinvar names > and special substitution variables (i.e. skin vars) inserted into > code. True, and you can use code.embed.files for this--the normal way to insert javascript. But snippets can also contain markup, like site.actions, so in this case at least, you should be able to process the markup. What I should have done (haven't tested) is escaped it like this: [[#alert]] /= javascript code here =/ [[#end]] > One other thing about multi-line code blocks marked with [[#varname]] > ...[[#end]]: > Is an anchor called [[#end]] required? If it is I consider it bad > practise, as it leads to having multiple instances of the same anchor > name (i.e. bad HTML). Much better for a container I think is a syntax > like > [[#var]] > ... > ... > [[#varend]] > which make sthe ending anchor unique and tied to the starting anchor name. Actually the pattern just looks for '[[#' regardless. That would be good practice. Cheers, Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
