Encryption logic back to front

[+the pooks]

I really find the logic behind encrypting logs back to front. To me it would have made much more sense to say: "to encrypt enclose in square brackets []" instead of the current "encrypt the whole log" button and then using the square bracket to unencrypt. Any thoughts on this.

[+mini cacher]

well... you are encrypting the log... so no special brackets should be required to encrypt it. Oh you want something in your encrypted log to not be encrypted? then enclose it in brackets.

 

however, one could view it the other way... you want to log so no special brackets are needed. oh you want something within your log to be encrypted? then enclose it in brackets.

 

Either way it could be, one could argue that it is backwards... it all depends on how you view a log that is both encrypted and plain-text.

[+sTeamTraen]

I think there are two issues here:

 

1. Whether or not to encrypt anything. This, I suggest, has to be cued by something outside the text box - in this case the check box.

 

2. Having decided to encrypt something, how to indicate what that is. Here you can do it any way you want. If it was my code, I'd probably say that the default should be not to encrypt, and that anything inside something "more spectacular than a pair of brackets" would be encrypted. Perhaps double braces {{ }}.

 

But it isn't my code.

[+tozainamboku]

I wouldn't change it now. Whether or not it seems backwards, people have learned that when they encrypt their log they can use brackets to enclose the text they don't want encrypted. A change now would cause tremendous confusion to the people who are use to the way it works. Besides there is a reason it works the way it does. In logs you can use BBCode to format your log, not to mention smilies. BBCodes and smilies are written inside of brackets. When you encrypt a log with BBCodes or smilies the BBCode and smilies are not encrypted so they continue to work the way they should.

 

I think that in the United States we drive on the wrong side of the road (since the OP is from South Africa I'm sure they'll agree). We should switch and drive on the left side of the road since it's more logical

Edited December 12, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+yawetag]

Why not both?

 

if "encrypt" selection is on {
 anything in brackets is not encrypted
}

if "encrypt" selection is off {
 anything in brackets is encrypted
}

 

I do have to agree that brackets was a bad idea. I don't use them, but I could see where others would.

[+British Reaper]

I agree that it is backwards. The log is standard so no brackets. Something encrypted would then go in the brackets. Logic captain

[+the pooks]

Why not both?

 

if "encrypt" selection is on {
 anything in brackets is not encrypted
}

if "encrypt" selection is off {
 anything in brackets is encrypted
}

 

I do have to agree that brackets was a bad idea. I don't use them, but I could see where others would.

 

That would be a good workaround.

 

Look, it is not a life threatening situation, so it is not essential to change it (as if my post would!) - it just seemed back to front to me.

 

It would be too disruptive to change, and as explained by tozainamboku there are encoding reasons why it works the way it does. Thanks everyone for the feedback - it is always nice to know why something works the way it does.

[CoyoteRed]

Don't forget the logic that would allow a cache owner to encrypt the entire log. Mayhap simply append double braces to the front and rear of the text.