I wish we could be more precise when speaking about "escaping".
I am  concerned how html special character codes are now treated in
normal pages.

It is common practise to be able to enter html special character
codes, for the purpose of displaying the special character, not the
code. Like — or ° or » etc., there are loads of these
codes. Browsers understand them and render them correctly. Call it
markup if you like, but it is not markup the BW markup engine needs to
translate. And none of these needs any "escaping", needs any special
encoding to make it more safe or more useful. And authors may be
accustomed to use them. How else would you add an m-dash or a
non-breaking space? Add another markup for each? But it is already
markup.

The only character which needs special treatment from a safety point
of view is <, which can be saved as  %3c, to distinguish it from &lt;
code.

And the $ character may be internally changed to &#36; in order not to
create internal php variables, but should be saved to page file as $.

I don't see any need to "escape" the & character.

The way BW is treating code pages is very much what I like to see for
all pages, with the exception of saving the < as is. Any < should be
saved as %3c. That for me is the main difference between text in code
pages and normal pages.

This approach is much more straight forward than what BW is doing now
with its numerous replacements, translating backwards and forwards
certain characters. To me at least it is a huge difficulty in
understanding the BW scripts. Sometimes it feels like walking in a
hall of mirrors. I believe it can be hugely simplified.

I'd love to hear some others chiming in on this topic.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to