Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On September 8, 2009, you wrote: >> Aaron J. Seigo wrote: >>>>>> or: >>>>>> State that if an item wishes to use markup, then it must enclose the >>>>>> whole text in a <markup> tag. >>>>> that would work as well. it's a small amount of overhead for not much >>>>> pain. it could also be that we look for the "<pre>" tag instead, and >>>>> make markup the default. >>>> Doing it this way is not good. It can fail in the (admittedly rare) case >>>> where the plain text contains the closing tag. >>> how is that different from using <markup>? this just says that rich text >>> is the default, and if you want plain text to use <pre> around your text. >> Imagine an application which does not markup, but shows text which is >> not known at compile time. From the app point of view, it uses some a >> "template like this: >> >> <pre>Static text\n%1\nMore static text</pre> >> >> Then in the (admittedly rare) case where %1 is "Foo</pre>", your text is >> cut. Unless of course you do not check for the closing tag, which >> (thinking aloud) you don't really need to... but it feels a bit more >> hackish than having to escape markup. > > this is no different if the default is "you must preface with <markup>" and > the rare case where the input starts with <markup> :)
The difference I see is that an application which takes care of adding the <markup> tag most likely have the correct code in place to escape the '<' and '>' characters, whereas an application sending plain text most likely will not look at the content it sends. Aurelien _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
