"Scout" <>
Sent: 1/13/2005 12:19:35 PM

Re: GPX standard extensions

"Robert Lipe" wrote:
> I can't imagine a user voluntarily choosing rot13 so it's just
> additional work for you to encode it and for the readers to
> decode.

The author might have chosen rot13 to add a bit of difficulty for the
users with no self control. On the other hand, the author may have no
objections to quick and convenient decoding. Who's to say. In any
case, I've already patched to output
unencrypted hints in the GPX file. Authors who really care can always
encrypt their hints before they enter them in the Web site's text box.

> if you're going to spell it out in HTML, shall we specify WHICH
> HTML or XHTML strain? Is it meant to be a fragment or a
> complete document?

The HTML produced by is an HTML fragment. I guess more
properly, it's whatever the user types in the text box for "hint". just pastes the contents into the page, whether it
displays properly or not. (I guess I shouldn't admit that. Or I
should put some safeguards in place to prevent malicious HTML. Yikes.
Another unfortunate discovery due to this discussion.)

If you can suggest a way to specify the HTML strain a GPX text field
should be compliant with, I'll incorporate it.

> Oddly, there's so little traffice for me personally from this list

Me, too. That's why I suggested this list. It needs some geocaching-
related traffic. It's a historical resource that shouldn't be allowed
to die an ignoble death, suffocation by spam.