[pLog-svn] blog comment (fwd)

[Jon Daley]

 	I looked at it just now.  Her HTML is invalid, with an unclosed 
<a> tag.  The add-comment validator throws away stuff if the html is 
invalid.  The edit post, using htmlarea, posting the html in html mode, 
then switching to wysiwyg mode, fixes the html correctly.
 	tinymce in non-wysiwyg mode (and probably with the config option 
of make-html-compliant turned on, makes this particular html invalid, but 
different, and the browser displays it somewhat okay.
 	My edit comments plugin doesn't do any input validation, (other 
than sql escaping) and so the incorrect html is displayed to the browser, 
and in this case, firefox is smart enough to display it correctly.

 	So, all that to say, what should happen when the blog owner, or 
comment poster paste invalid html?

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jon Daley wrote:

> This is from a 1.0.6 user.  I won't get to it until next week.  Perhaps the 
> xhtml cleaner is messed up?
>
> URL is http://venables-r.us/  and then "peter's ponderings" or something like 
> that.  But, it is also happening on the salemsattic blog as well, so probably 
> it is a general problem to all LT users?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:07:18 -0400
> From: Linda Wightman
>
> Here is the full text of my comment, which was somehow chopped off.  Maybe 
> you can fix it?  I thought maybe I'd messed up the html, but I tried it in my 
> blog and it works okay.
>
> Hmmm, this is weirder and weirder, so I'm cc-ing Jon.  I just checked 
> further. It looks all right when I POST it to my blog, but when I try to add 
> it as a comment, it cuts it off just as it does in your blog (right before 
> the <a> tag).  However, when I EDIT the comment, it all comes through fine. 
> (I do have <a> as one of the allowed tags, by the way.)
>
> Linda
>
> As a writer, albeit just barely, I have to agree, mostly, with the point made 
> by Mark Moring in his <a 
> href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/smuteditors.html"<i>Christianity 
> Today</i> commentary.</a>  It's not nice to mess with an artist's work 
> without his consent.  Not that there isn't a place for it -- for example, in 
> my experience choir directors are always making minor changes to anthems to 
> suit the circumstances of their own choirs.  Editing out stuff that was 
> probably put in a movie just to jack up the rating would seem to be no more 
> harmful than that.  Yet if the artist objects...we probably should respect 
> that.<br /><br />So where does that leave us?  In the highly frustrating 
> position of having to endure gratuitious whatever, or missing whatever is 
> good in the other 98% of the movie.  (If the good is less than 98%, I don't 
> usually bother with the movie, anyway.)  I don't know the answer.  I do know 
> that at my age (not having small children in the house), I worry less about 
> the things that Cleanflix would have censored and more about more subtle 
> damage, such as blatant fiction passed off as history.  Having seen, for 
> example, <i>Amadeus</i> and <i>Braveheart</i>, I have great difficulty 
> cleansing from my brain false images of Mozart and of Scottish history -- and 
> most people who watch those movies have no idea how distorted they are.
> -- 
> Linda Wightman
> http://sca.salemsattic.com/lwblog/1
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://devel.lifetype.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>

-- 
Jon Daley
http://jon.limedaley.com/

Consulting - If you're not part of the solution, there's good money
   to be made in prolonging the problem.