|
Posted by David Johnstone on 01/31/42 11:45
Toby Inkster wrote:
> David Johnstone wrote:
>
> > Is there perhaps some fiendishly obscure alternative syntax
> > for coding an html tag?
>
> No -- but the particular filter that you're using may have a method of
> escaping tags to prevent them from being converted; or it may have a bug
> that can be exploited to achieve the same effect.
>
> Without more information from you it's difficult to know.
The filter is not under my control (see my other post). It's on a
server I'm using but which I don't administer, so I don't have any
more detailed information about it. It's designed to parse normal
text and produce a result that will look like the original in an html
viewer, so I would imagine anything like e.g. "\>" would have to
view as exactly that in the browser.
It does support it's own primitive markup language with directives
like:-
%cr Red %c*
which would show the word "Red" in red.
Since the results it produces are html (but not my html), I imagine
it could *always* substitute < and > with no escape possibility,
since the results (> and <) would always view correctly in
a browser. I guess I would do it that way, anyway.
David
[Back to original message]
|