On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:02 +0200, Aurélien Gâteau 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.
If you're doing printf-like stuff with markup strings, you really should be using a function like g_markup_printf_escaped: http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/2.20/glib-Simple-XML-Subset-Parser.html#g-markup-printf-escaped If you're not, you're asking for trouble. That said, I don't much care for markup suppressing markup. It doesn't work that way in HTML, and it certainly doesn't in XML. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
