From 6160238439c5df335944add13b00a0a80d1b663b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 15:15:34 -0400
Subject: comments; my filter-full branch should fix this

---
 doc/bugs/po_vs_templates.mdwn | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/bugs/po_vs_templates.mdwn b/doc/bugs/po_vs_templates.mdwn
index ce0ac3577..7bc56676e 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/po_vs_templates.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/po_vs_templates.mdwn
@@ -18,6 +18,26 @@ This has been fixed in my po branch.
 
 -- [[intrigeri]]
 
-
+>> Hmm. Don't like adding a fourth positional parameter to that (or
+>> any really) function.
+>>
+>> I think it's quite possible that some of the directives that are
+>> calling filter do so unnecessarily. For example, conditional,
+>> cutpaste, more, and toggle each re-filter text that comes from the
+>> page and so has already been filtered. They could probably drop
+>> the filtering. template likewise does not need to filter the 
+>> parameters passed into it. Does it need to filter the template output?
+>> Well, it allows the (deprecated) embed plugin to work on template
+>> content, but that's about it.
+>>
+>> Note also that the only other plugin to provide a filter, txt,
+>> could also run into similar problems as po has, in theory (it looks at
+>> the page parameter and assumes the content is for the whole page).
+>>
+>> [[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/filter-full author="[[joey]]"]]
+>> So, I've made a filter-full branch, where I attempt to fix this
+>> by avoiding unnecessary filtering. Can you check it and merge it into
+>> your po branch and remove your other workarounds so I can merge?
+>> --[[Joey]]
 
 [[!tag patch]]
-- 
cgit v1.2.3