Re: [Python-markdown-discuss] Escaping HTML instead of removing it ?

[Yuri T. <qar...@gm...>]

> until just now (after committing my patch). One could already have
> code that sets `HTML_REMOVED_TEXT` to an empty string so that all html
> is stripped and replaced with nothing. Some may prefer such a
> behavior. This makes that imposable to do. Is anyone doing this?

This does seem like a reasonable thing to allow.  Why not use None
instead of empty string as the code for escaping, testing for
type(HTML_REMOVED_TEXT) == "string"?

> Another solution would be to change the expected values of the
> `safe_mode` parameter for Markdown() to one of 'strip', 'escape', or
> None rather than True/False. But that could get complicated/confusing.

This is actually quote reasonable, except that we could make it more
more backwards compatible by saying that safe_mode = None would turn
it off, safe_mode = "escape" would escape the HTML, and "remove" or
any other non-false value would replace HTML with the value of
HTML_REMOVED_TEXT.  I think for the documentation we should tell
people to put "replace", but the actual code should treat any true
value other than "escape" as meaning "removed".

> I should also mention that I also moved the code that does the
> escaping/removing from the convert method to a text-post-processor. It
> makes more sense there regardless of this change IMO and simplifies
> the process of making your own extension to change the behavior.
> Extensions would be another way to address the issues I mention above.
> Perhaps we could just leave it at that.

I am glad you did it, but it would be nice to have a simpler solution,
that does not depend on groking extensions.

Thanks for all the work!  When do you think we should make a release of 1.7?

  - yuri

-- 
Yuri Takhteyev
Ph.D. Candidate, UC Berkeley School of Information
http://takhteyev.org/, http://www.freewisdom.org/