index : flyspray | |
Archlinux32 customized Flyspray installation | gitolite user |
summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff |
author | Andreas Baumann <mail@andreasbaumann.cc> | 2020-02-01 09:05:48 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andreas Baumann <mail@andreasbaumann.cc> | 2020-02-01 09:05:48 +0100 |
commit | 6854cb3f4d8219cf1829e32122eb2502a916eae9 (patch) | |
tree | 350feb504587d932e02837a1442b059759927646 /vendor/ezyang/htmlpurifier/WYSIWYG |
-rw-r--r-- | vendor/ezyang/htmlpurifier/WYSIWYG | 20 |
diff --git a/vendor/ezyang/htmlpurifier/WYSIWYG b/vendor/ezyang/htmlpurifier/WYSIWYG new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c518aac --- /dev/null +++ b/vendor/ezyang/htmlpurifier/WYSIWYG @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ + +WYSIWYG - What You See Is What You Get + HTML Purifier: A Pretty Good Fit for TinyMCE and FCKeditor + +Javascript-based WYSIWYG editors, simply stated, are quite amazing. But I've +always been wary about using them due to security issues: they handle the +client-side magic, but once you've been served a piping hot load of unfiltered +HTML, what should be done then? In some situations, you can serve it uncleaned, +since you only offer these facilities to trusted(?) authors. + +Unfortunantely, for blog comments and anonymous input, BBCode, Textile and +other markup languages still reign supreme. Put simply: filtering HTML is +hard work, and these WYSIWYG authors don't offer anything to alleviate that +trouble. Therein lies the solution: + +HTML Purifier is perfect for filtering pure-HTML input from WYSIWYG editors. + +Enough said. + + vim: et sw=4 sts=4 |