JSword only allows in the fields as documented in the wiki. In other fields
it escapes the HTML.
The CrossWire repo should not have spurious HTML.
— DM Smith
From my phone. Brief. Weird autocorrections.
> On Dec 30, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
>
> Btw, grepping my ~/.sword/mods
Btw, grepping my ~/.sword/mods.d/*.conf shows that tags are used
elsewhere as well, e.g. in About= and DistributionNotes=. There are even
some , and tags in About= and History_x.x= entries.
It looks like BibleTime, too, is guilty of not properly escaping those.
J
On 30.12.18 10:32, David Hasl
Y'all:
Given the short lifespan of much hardware, a hardware based key is a bad
idea. Over the years, this has been a problem for me. Even though
vendors will issue new keys, it is still a big hassle and stops one from
working.
Per-user keys, on the other hand, do make sense and seem to stri
Wouldn’t the points about HTML apply just as equally to the existing ShortPromo
key ?
Some front-ends already jump to the URL specified in the href, and can open a
browser to do so.
David
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 00:39, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> I like the idea, beca
Hi Jaak, thanks for the feedback...
On 12/29/18 5:39 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> Why can't the About= entry contain this information?
The About= entry does contain this information right now, but it usually
contains too much information for a nice, short, description for a UI to
display instructio
I like the idea, because it is useful information for the users. Here
are some of the thoughts I gathered for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming";>
Why can't the About= entry contain this information?
I'm unsure whether "UnlockInfo" is the best name.
Is it safe to assume that th
Hi Michael,
There is a new mechanism committed in the latest trunk of SWORD which
allows a publisher to "personalize" an unlock key per user, if they
would like, but SWORD does nothing to try to enforce 'per device' or
'per user' usage.
I have never heard from a publisher that they do not wish to
Years ago I wrote a proof of concept showing how every customer could
receive a cipher encrypted module with a unique key per user. Nothing stops
any publisher from doing the same if they wanted to avoid having a single
unlock key.
Having it unique to the user's device would be relatively straight
As long as you're opening the unlock option for debate, can I suggest that
the unlock codes get hashed for the user in some way. That is the user
provides some kind of credential information to the publisher, which the
publisher uses some of the info to hash the unlock code, and the resulting
code
<<< text/html; charset=utf-8: Unrecognized >>>
___
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
