[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#242020: www.debian.org: security/dsa-long.en.rdf has HTML markup in <description> tag



* Mario Lang <mlang@debian.org> [2004-04-04 13:19]:
> I just added http://www.debian.org/security/dsa-long.en.rdf to my RSS
> feed aggregator and realized that it does behave strangely.

 It might be your feed aggregator -- it works perfectly on
planet.debian.net.

> AIUI, the description tag is not supposed to contain ordinary HTML markup
> in RSS 1.0.

 Thats why they are escaped and put in there as entities.

> Since it is ment as a teaser anyway, and interested people are
> supposed to follow the link (thats the rss design), I think it would
> not hurt to be more standards compliant and simply strip well-known
> HTML constructs.

 No, please not. From what I understand it HTML is allowed in there if
it is encoded as entities.

 If you on the other hand find out where the problem with your
aggregator lies I would be pleased to fix it. But not in this way,
sorry. Especially because

> Index: english/template/debian/recent_list.wml
> ===================================================================
>                  $moreinfo =~ s/</&lt;/g;
>                  $moreinfo =~ s/>/&gt;/g;
>                  $moreinfo =~ s/"/&quot;/g;

 you leave this escaping in it still.

 Your patch is quite dirty in that respect. Either strip them off
completely or do encode them correctly....

 If you are not able to find out what the problem with your aggregator
is pretty please close the bug. I am quite confident that you should be
having problems with all the other feeds that are around there, not only
the dsa-long feed.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
"Die Angabe des vollständigen Realnamens erleichtert die Kommunikation
im Usenet ungemein, man kann sich dann nämlich auf die Inhalte der
Postings konzentrieren und muß nicht über Sinn/Unsinn von Pseudonymen
o.ä. diskutieren." (Ingo Ließegang, de.newusers.questions, 6.10.1999)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: