summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/plugins
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorhttp://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/ <http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/@web>2008-11-27 05:42:07 -0500
committerJoey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>2008-11-27 05:42:07 -0500
commitec03c89f3e01a2b1d374e1ae66d3f5fb0370ca99 (patch)
tree1a78c4823c30e5eca6f3c43120dfb30f713f7410 /doc/plugins
parent92efb9c000825e1f16af4a27c51fb3e82a490a3f (diff)
Move some more discussion here
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/plugins')
-rw-r--r--doc/plugins/contrib/comments/discussion.mdwn37
1 files changed, 34 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments/discussion.mdwn
index 8f98c1cb5..a054dd55d 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments/discussion.mdwn
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Why internal pages? (unresolved)
+## Why internal pages? (unresolved)
Comments are saved as internal pages, so they can never be edited through the CGI,
only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown]].
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown]
>>> for this plugin, and the last is harmless; you seem to think the first
>>> is useful, and the other two are harmful. --[[smcv]]
-# Access control (unresolved?)
+## Access control (unresolved?)
By the way, I think that who can post comments should be controllable by
the existing plugins opendiscussion, anonok, signinedit, and lockedit. Allowing
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ spam problems. So, use `check_canedit` as at least a first-level check?
> reliant on the fact that internal pages can't be edited. Perhaps there should be a
> `editable_pages` pagespec, defaulting to `'*'`? --[[smcv]]
-# comments directive vs global setting (resolved?)
+## comments directive vs global setting (resolved?)
When comments have been enabled generally, you still need to mark which pages
can have comments, by including the `\[[!comments]]` directive in them. By default,
@@ -137,3 +137,34 @@ the comments. [This requirement has now been removed --[[smcv]]]
>>>> conffiles.) --[[smcv]]
>>>>> I've switched my branch to use page.tmpl instead; see what you think? --[[smcv]]
+
+## Raw HTML (resolved?)
+
+Raw HTML was not initially allowed by default (this was configurable).
+
+> I'm not sure that raw html should be a problem, as long as the
+> htmlsanitizer and htmlbalanced plugins are enabled. I can see filtering
+> out directives, as a special case. --[[Joey]]
+
+>> Right, if I sanitize each post individually, with htmlscrubber and either htmltidy
+>> or htmlbalance turned on, then there should be no way the user can forge a comment;
+>> I was initially wary of allowing meta directives, but I think those are OK, as long
+>> as the comment template puts the \[[!meta author]] at the *end*. Disallowing
+>> directives is more a way to avoid commenters causing expensive processing than
+>> anything else, at this point.
+>>
+>> I've rebased the plugin on master, made it sanitize individual posts' content
+>> and removed the option to disallow raw HTML. Sanitizing individual posts before
+>> they've been htmlized required me to preserve whitespace in the htmlbalance
+>> plugin, so I did that. Alternatively, we could htmlize immediately and always
+>> save out raw HTML? --[[smcv]]
+
+>>> There might be some use cases for other directives, such as img, in
+>>> comments.
+>>>
+>>> I don't know if meta is "safe" (ie, guaranteed to be inexpensive and not
+>>> allow users to do annoying things) or if it will continue to be in the
+>>> future. Hard to predict really, all that can be said with certainty is
+>>> all directives will contine to be inexpensive and safe enough that it's
+>>> sensible to allow users to (ab)use them on open wikis.
+>>> --[[Joey]]