Closed laugehoyer closed 3 months ago
Hi,
thanks for contributing.
You are right that htmlizing the & is unexpected and problematic. Thanks for making us aware.
I am not sure your change is the best solution, why would we do it only for generic23 and only for those fields? I think this may be an issue that should be deal with by the parsers. Let me mull for a bit (not least as am currently on holiday).
For generic23
, it seems like this was an oversight introduced back in 75135e3e79d71d7e0757f1fdc1dfe9e9918a23eb.
Otherwise the same thing can be seen in hamlet
for BR
and quarter
for the fallback template of TC.
yes, just human error. Very wel spotted. I just checked in a fix for BR and TC
It seems like a mistake to html-escape these fields.
E.g.
becomes