> Karl, Xiphos's special copy setup is just that, special. Either way, no need > to go berserk about it. Even if another system is to blame it is still a good > idea to prove it to be such instead of "shooting the messenger" as it were. > -Wes
There is no "special copy setup". In this sort of copy/paste operation, the burden is typically on the receiver to interpret the bytes correctly. In this case, it's Firefox/Facebook/Javascript which are misinterpreting the data. The *same* data, pasted into Word, pastes correctly. This has been explained before in this thread, but the way copy/paste works is that ^C merely signifies to the clipboard that there is data available. It does not actually "copy" the data. When you hit ^V, *then* the receiving application gets a pointer to the data, and interprets it however it likes (though there are hints to tell it what sort of data it is). So, no data is transferred until the receiving application does it. The receiving application bears the responsibility of interpreting the data correctly, except that the original app is supposed to mark what kind of data it is. That is obviously working, as the data gets interpreted correctly by Word, Chrome, even Internet Explorer correctly, just not Firefox (when pasting into Facebook). We've been through this already in very technical detail. It will be my last response to it. If there *is* a problem in the Xiphos stack, it is in gtkhtml which I am working very hard to get rid of. I find the possibility that there is an actual problem somewhere in Xiphos very hard to accept*, however. Matthew Naturally, I just mean in regards to this issue; there are no doubt other issues in Xiphos. _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
