Talk:Import glossary entries: Difference between revisions
(The CDATA tag may not function as stated in MoodleDocs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I tested this solution in Moodle 1.9, and I couldn't read the characters, | I tested this solution in Moodle 1.9, and I couldn't read the characters, | ||
because (I think) that Moodle's HTML editor " | because (I think) that Moodle's HTML editor "confuses" the CDATA tag | ||
is a comment. | is a comment. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The first one is related to the < symbol, and the second one to the > character. | The first one is related to the < symbol, and the second one to the > character. | ||
The tags don't appear in the Definition area of the glossary, but if I edit the definition in the HTML editor, and then click in the <> button, I see : | |||
<!--[CDATA[<]]--> | |||
<!--[CDATA[>]]--> | |||
Which, I believe, its the HTML format for a comment. | |||
Maybe somebody else can test this in order to confirm the proposed solution, and/or to give more evidence that it has no effect in the integration of the glossary. | Maybe somebody else can test this in order to confirm the proposed solution, and/or to give more evidence that it has no effect in the integration of the glossary. | ||
Thanks | Thanks | ||
Revision as of 00:13, 23 March 2008
In the "Troubleshooting" section it says:
"HTML and XHTML tags written within CONCEPT or DEFINITION elements will fail on import, showing "Array" instead of the desired content. To remedy this, try writing the (X)HTML tags within <![CDATA[ ]]> markup."
I tested this solution in Moodle 1.9, and I couldn't read the characters, because (I think) that Moodle's HTML editor "confuses" the CDATA tag is a comment.
For example, I imported a definition with this tags:
<![CDATA[<]]> <![CDATA[>]]>
The first one is related to the < symbol, and the second one to the > character.
The tags don't appear in the Definition area of the glossary, but if I edit the definition in the HTML editor, and then click in the <> button, I see :
Which, I believe, its the HTML format for a comment.
Maybe somebody else can test this in order to confirm the proposed solution, and/or to give more evidence that it has no effect in the integration of the glossary.
Thanks
