Allow anchor links containing colon #87
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A colon is a legitimate character to contain in an ID reference in an
anchor link[1]. The REGEX_PROTOCOL was too general and would consider a
sequence such as '#foo:1' or '/somepage#foo:1' to define the '#foo'
protocol.
The '#' character is explicitly excluded from being part of URI
scheme[2]:
scheme = alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-name
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
|
Thanks for the excellent PR! I've merged this into the dev-2.1.0 branch. It'll make its way to master when 2.1.0 is released. |
|
👍 great |
kalleth
added a commit
to alphagov/govspeak
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2014
The older version used by govspeak (2.0.3) contains a bug where colons in ids would not be allowed, which prevents footnotes being saved as part of a document body in specialist-publisher. This was fixed in 2.1.0 (see rgrove/sanitize#87). Trying to force an upgraded version of sanitize to be activated using the specialist-publisher Gemfile is a non-starter as bundle refuses to upgrade to that version as it's too far ahead of Govspeak's requirements.
kalleth
added a commit
to alphagov/govspeak
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2014
The older version used by govspeak (2.0.3) contains a bug where colons in ids would not be allowed, which prevents footnotes being saved as part of a document body in specialist-publisher. This was fixed in 2.1.0 (see rgrove/sanitize#87). Trying to force an upgraded version of sanitize to be activated using the specialist-publisher Gemfile is a non-starter as bundle refuses to upgrade to that version as it's too far ahead of Govspeak's requirements.
kalleth
added a commit
to alphagov/govspeak
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2014
The older version used by govspeak (2.0.3) contains a bug where colons in ids would not be allowed, which prevents footnotes being saved as part of a document body in specialist-publisher. This was fixed in 2.1.0 (see rgrove/sanitize#87). Trying to force an upgraded version of sanitize to be activated using the specialist-publisher Gemfile is a non-starter as bundle refuses to upgrade to that version as it's too far ahead of Govspeak's requirements.
mililk4
added a commit
to mililk4/govspeak
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
The older version used by govspeak (2.0.3) contains a bug where colons in ids would not be allowed, which prevents footnotes being saved as part of a document body in specialist-publisher. This was fixed in 2.1.0 (see rgrove/sanitize#87). Trying to force an upgraded version of sanitize to be activated using the specialist-publisher Gemfile is a non-starter as bundle refuses to upgrade to that version as it's too far ahead of Govspeak's requirements.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A colon is a legitimate character to contain in an ID reference in an
anchor link[1]. The REGEX_PROTOCOL was too general and would consider a
sequence such as '#foo:1' or '/somepage#foo:1' to define the '#foo'
protocol.
The '#' character is explicitly excluded from being part of URI
scheme[2]:
Therefore it seems safe to exclude the character from the initiali part of REGEX_PROTOCOL.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-name
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt