DM Smith wrote: > There are many fields that have non-ascii. Some are UTF-8 and some > are latin-1. It does not seem to correspond to the Encoding= field. > If you wish me to enumerate them, I'll look.
Ok, that should definitely be fixed. If you have the time, please feel free to find the errors, otherwise I'll take a look at it after .10. > In the conf, there are other rtf codes such as \b and \i. I can > enumerate all the exceptions to \par,\pard,\qc and \uxxxxx, if you > wish. The only modules that have the \u codes are for utf-8 modules. > The jsp code that displays the confs on the website are relatively > braindead and only handle a few codes. The rest, such as \u show up > uninterpreted. Ok, we can check through all the Abouts and make sure that the RTFHTML filter can handle anything used in them. And I don't think the jsp that handles that was ever much more than a quick hack, which could definitely use some maintenance to repair any deficiencies and maybe give users a look more consistent with the rest of the site. > Further, a few modules have html in the about field. The <a href=""> > is only in the short promo at the time. Those are errors. > Personally, I don't have a problem with whatever decision is made, > but I'd like the conf's to be fixed to be consistent with what ever > is/was decided. Personally, I'd love to see us move to XML .confs, a nice benefit of which would be validation when authoring. But we would need to maintain backwards compatability with the old .confs for a few years/decades. --Chris _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
