Allow <s>, <del>, and <ins> in entry subjects.

[pauamma]

Title:
Allow <s>, <del>, and <ins> in entry subjects.

Area:
entries, HTML cleaner

Summary:
Currently, the HTML cleaner removes those, and thus prevents having a subject like "<del>I think I did a bad thing</del> <ins>Oh wait, I misread</ins> when you only discover your misreading after initially posting the entry and want to reflect that in the subject.

Description:
I'm not sure what the original reason for not allowing those was, so there may be reasons why this is infeasible or undesirable. Also, the window title (HTML <title> tag) doesn't allow HTML IIRC, so that would need to be addressed, perhaps by escaping the tags instead of rendering them. (But then, that needs to happen for tags already allowed in subjects, so it wouldn't create a new problem.)

Poll #8405 Allow <s>, <del>, and <ins> in entry subjects.

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 51

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
20 (39.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (7.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
9 (17.6%)

(I have no opinion)
18 (35.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[denise]

Quick favor, can you pop in and undo the escaping? (It's auto-escaped through the suggestions generator, so it's a layer of escaping too much *g*)

[pauamma]

Done. (I wasn't sure, and decided to escape them on the grounds that double escaping would be more readable than no escaping at all.)

[solitarywalker]

What about <strike>?

[pauamma]

I think that's a synonym for <s>, so I'd include it *votes "implement with changes"*. (If it's not, what does it do?)

[solitarywalker]

Yes, it is.

[matgb]

I'm not sure what the original reason for not allowing those was, so there may be reasons why this is infeasible or undesirable

I know there was a reason, but I cannot remember what it specifically was. However, AFAIC, most other platforms also disallow formatting of subjects and most feedreaders seem to fail at showing them.

If a reader doesn't support the formatting, it can resolve it in weird ways and sometimes simply strip formats so the meaning can be lost.

I'm going to go look through RSS/ATOM specs for titles to see if it's actually there when I've time, unless someone knows it's not, but in the meantime I'm instinctively opposed, but open to persuasion if it's not against standard specs.

[matgb]

Follow up, the RSS 2.0 specs allow for html within the ITEM, but makes no mention of where else it may be allowed, implication is that it's not.

I then tried the W3C Feed Validator[1] and put in one of their sample feeds[2], which, unsurprisingly validated correctly. Adding an Italic tag to the Title element then caused it to fail validation.

It therefore appears that HTML elements aren't allowed in post subjects for the RSS to be valid, so we'd either need to strip it or do something weird, stripping it could remove serious context that users are unexpecting, so I'm opposed to the change.
http://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi
http://static.userland.com/gems/backend/rssTwoExample2.xml

[cesy]

Changing my vote based on this.

[pauamma]

http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/605722.html?thread=3702042#cmt3702042

[zvi]

Would it be very hard to have the RSS reader add text so it displayed like lynx (a text only browser) does, to wit.

deleted text becomes [del]deleted text[/del] and inserted text becomes [ins]inserted text[/ins]

[matgb]

It'd need to be something we do at this end, reformat the feed output to contain that text as well. It would also look very weird to off site readers not expecting it, plus it could create issues for, say, LJ readers of feeds where it could trigger the character limit.

If it's doable, I'd have no trouble with it, but it looks like more work than it'd be worth, at least for me.

[pauamma]

That would be a killer objection, but Dreamwidth allows some HTML tags in subjects.

[matgb]

Hmm, and strips it completely from the RSS XML:<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" class="entry"><h3><a href="http://pauamma-testcomm000000000.dreamwidth.org/920.html">regular bold italic strong emphasized</a><div class="lastUpdated">29 October 2011 11:30</div></h3><div xml:base="http://pauamma-testcomm000000000.dreamwidth.org/data/rss" class="feedEntryContent">Quousque tandem, Catilina, abutere patientia nostra?<br /><br /><img width="30" height="12" alt="comment count unavailable" src="http://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=pauamma_testcomm000000000&ditemid=920" /> comments</div></div>Not sure I like that, think some way of indicating emphasis removal would be good if that's sustained.

[pauamma]

Not sure I like that, think some way of indicating emphasis removal would be good if that's sustained.

Agreed. And whether we strip them silently or mark the removal in some way, I can't think of a reason not to do the same with the additional tags I'd like.

[matgb]

True, if we already allow it for some formatting, then consistency would be good, so saying it shouldn't be allowed now is trying to shut the proverbial stable door.

I've changed my vote to 'with changes'-some way of figuring out a display method for all thr formatting within the feed would be necessary I think. Perhaps simply replacing the > < brackets with []?

[pauamma]

Yeah, that works. (As zvi mentionned earlier, that's essentially what lynx does for ins and del.)

[montuos]

+1