>>>>> Kyle Meyer <[email protected]> writes:
> Adam Porter <[email protected]> writes:
>> Colin Baxter <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> In my opinion, if it can't be fixed then the changes should be
>>> removed. Surely, we cannot have an org-mode that knowingly
>>> exports/publishes something that causes a validation error!
>>
>> Looking at the error message, the fix might be very simple:
>>
>> The most common cause of this error is unencoded ampersands in
>> URLs as described by the WDG in "Ampersands in URLs".
> Hmm, perhaps it is as simple as encoding the ampersand. That
> won't work with inline javascript, if I'm understanding correctly
> the link I gave in my reply. *But*, despite being embedded
> javascript, the librejs magnet link happens within a comment, so I
> suppose it really just comes down to how librejs treats it.
> Poking around in librejs (525e3a5), it seems it is clever and will
> s/&/&/:
> // Match by link on first parameter (legacy) if
> (licenses[key]["Magnet link"] === first.replace("&","&") ||
> licenses[key]["URL"] === first.replace("&","&")) { return
> [true, `Recognized license: "${licenses[key]['Name']}".`];
> Colin, could you try exporting with the change below and see if
> that resolves your validation issues? It'd also be great if you
> could check whether librejs is still happy after that change.
Ok, I'll try later today and report back.
Thanks again.
Best wishes,
--
Colin Baxter
www.Colin-Baxter.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG fingerprint: 68A8 799C 0230 16E7 BF68 2A27 BBFA 2492 91F5 41C8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not
understand it myself. A. Einstein
