Expand documentation of escapeJSON
#250
Merged
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
considerate
force-pushed
the
considerate/escape-code-documentation
branch
from
05b4fab
to
88c6b0b
Compare
RyanGlScott
reviewed
Dec 8, 2021
A note about usage in HTML attributes is also left to make it clear that there are cases where this escaping would not be enough to ensure that the resulting string is properly escaped for use in HTML.
considerate
force-pushed
the
considerate/escape-code-documentation
branch
from
b2f7c29
to
2c86cd0
Compare
Thank you! I updated the documentation according to your comments. |
RyanGlScott
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As a follow up to #248 I added some documentation about why \0 is escaped and what to do if the escaped string is to be used in an HTML attribute.
In criterion the JSON-encoded string is used in a
<script>tag as text (which is indicated in the comment) but I think it would be improper to leave the attribute case unclear, especially since the previous version tried to escape for this use case as well.