From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: gitweb not friendly to firefox? Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:51:06 -0800 Message-ID: <7v1wk8i1et.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7v4pp4ntpo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <989B956029373F45A0B8AF02970818902DA7E4@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: , "Raimund Bauer" , , Jakub Narebski To: "Li Yang-r58472" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 02 07:51:13 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HN1bl-0003Im-2h for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:51:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422975AbXCBGvJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:51:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422976AbXCBGvJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:51:09 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.241.41]:55049 "EHLO fed1rmmtao105.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422975AbXCBGvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:51:08 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070302065107.LRST24587.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:51:07 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Vir61W00A1kojtg0000000; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:51:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <989B956029373F45A0B8AF02970818902DA7E4@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> (Li Yang-r's message of "Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:47:59 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Li Yang-r58472" writes: >> > Yes, you are right. But why gitweb didn't do that for me? I > observed >> > that some early version of gitweb doesn't have this problem. Is it >> > possible that some new change caused this? >> >> It's very possible. > > Well, I had found out that the escapeHTML() is not functioning on my > server. It leaves the "<", ">", "@" unchanged. Does anyone have a clue > about it? I'm using Redhat 9.0 full installation. I am not sure offhand if escapeHTML implementation is wrong or the call site is calling escapeHTML when it should be using some other kinds of escape. The person who knows about this issue the best, if I have to guess, would be Jakub Narebski.