From b2b599dfb9d042da324480e03d3a55873ac336d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:36:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] response --- doc/bugs/cutpaste.pm:_missing_filter_call.mdwn | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/bugs/cutpaste.pm:_missing_filter_call.mdwn b/doc/bugs/cutpaste.pm:_missing_filter_call.mdwn index 30bd52996..475880f0a 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/cutpaste.pm:_missing_filter_call.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/cutpaste.pm:_missing_filter_call.mdwn @@ -21,3 +21,21 @@ is being doing without `filter`ing first, for example in the same file, `copy` function. --[[tschwinge]] + +> So, in English, page text inside a cut directive will not be filtered. +> Because the cut directive takes the text during the scan pass, before +> filtering happens. +> +> Commit 192ce7a238af9021b0fd6dd571f22409af81ebaf and +> [[bugs/po_vs_templates]] has to do with this. +> There I decided that filter hooks should *only* act on the complete +> text of a page. +> +> I also suggested that anything that wants to reliably +> s/FOO/BAR/ should probably use a sanitize hook, not a filter hook. +> I think that would make sense in this example. +> +> I don't see any way to make cut text be filtered while satisfying these +> constraints, without removing cutpaste's ability to have forward pastes +> of text cut laster in the page. (That does seems like an increasingly +> bad idea..) --[[Joey]] -- 2.26.2