sure, if the doc comment is seen as valuable enough i have no problem doing that :)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Adam Winer <[email protected]> wrote: > Could you just trim out the "script" part of it, and leave behind the > Javascript example? > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Chris Chabot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Any comments on this? I would like to commit this to break the currently > > broken trunk > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Chris Chabot <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hey All, > >> > >> php-shindig's new gadget parser, which uses a dom parser, gets confused > >> when assigning a node value that contains a /* comment including a > >> >script< */ .. as in it translates it back to > <script>foo</script<, > >> which then causes the browser to trip because of the unterminated script > tag > >> (odd btw that it doesn't translate the last < but that's irrelevant > to > >> the proposed solution) > >> > >> Would it be ok to remove that comment from core/prefs.js ? The patch > would > >> be: > >> > >> Index: src/main/javascript/features/core/prefs.js > >> =================================================================== > >> --- src/main/javascript/features/core/prefs.js (revision 764189) > >> +++ src/main/javascript/features/core/prefs.js (working copy) > >> @@ -28,16 +28,6 @@ > >> * var prefs = new gadgets.Prefs(); > >> * var name = prefs.getString("name"); > >> * var lang = prefs.getLang(); > >> - * > >> - * Modules with type=url can also use this library to parse arguments > >> passed > >> - * by URL, but this is not the common case: > >> - * > >> - * <script src="http://apache.org/shindig/prefs.js > >> "></script> > >> - * <script> > >> - * gadgets.Prefs.parseUrl(); > >> - * var prefs = new gadgets.Prefs(); > >> - * var name = prefs.getString("name"); > >> - * </script≶ > >> */ > >> > >> > >> We've had trouble with url's and script tags in comments before (as in > >> hundreds of thousands of 404's a day on apache's servers due to them), > and > >> now this issue with the xml parser i'm using, possibly it would be safer > not > >> to include any form of script tags in the comments? :) (this is the only > >> occurrence of a script tag left in the features). > >> > >> Would like to have a second opinion before committing this 'patch'. > >> > >> -- Chris > >> > > >
