Re: [sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-23 Thread David Haslam
Isaac, Did you omit to attach the screenshot? Tip: DropBox users can simply provide a link to a screenshot saved there automatically. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Bad-markup-in-VarApp-1-0-bug-in-Xiphos-tp4655887p4655888.html Sent from the

Re: [sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-23 Thread Karl Kleinpaste
On 01/23/2016 12:34 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > It consistently shows a sort of 'staircase' effect, as if a superscript > were being applied but never closed. (See attached screenshot for an > example.) > I'm wondering if this is bad markup or a bug, and if it's the latter, > where the bug is. The

Re: [sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-23 Thread Karl Kleinpaste
For completeness' sake, I just repeated the fix in osishtmlhref.cpp in both trunk and sword-1-7-x, even though I'm pretty sure no one is using the old htmlhref filters any more. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org

Re: [sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-23 Thread Isaac Dunham
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 01:44:22AM -0800, David Haslam wrote: > Isaac, > > Did you omit to attach the screenshot? > Yes. Let's see if I get it this time... Thanks, Isaac Dunham varapp-john3-16.png Description: Binary data ___ sword-devel mailing

Re: [sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-23 Thread Karl Kleinpaste
This is what the same passage looks like with the engine trivially fixed. ___ 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

[sword-devel] Bad markup in VarApp 1.0/bug in Xiphos?

2016-01-22 Thread Isaac Dunham
Hello, I'm using Xiphos 4.0.4 (Webkit/gtk3) with Sword 1.7.4, and have VarApp 1.0 (the NT Manuscript Variant Apparatus) installed. It consistently shows a sort of 'staircase' effect, as if a superscript were being applied but never closed. (See attached screenshot for an example.) I'm wondering if