Glenn Skinner wrote: > I think I know what happened, and it's my fault. When Mark sent me > his (very well done) opinion.ms draft, I had to work on the formatting > of the interface table a bit and left the original behind as > opinion.ms-. But although the redaction script is programmed to > ignore opinion.ms, it doesn't give opinion.ms- the same treatment, so > the "proprietary" boilerplate in that file triggered the clampdown. > > I've removed opinion.ms-. Let's see whether that unclogs the drain.
The case is now open and the opinion.pdf and opinion.txt files are there but the opinion.ms file isn't, as expected. I *think* Mark's issue is that the opinion.ms file is closed even though he wrote as an external contributor. I think his point is that it can't really be considered to contain confidential information, Mark, is that correct? AlanC said that the ARC had asked for the opinion.ms files to be skipped by the publishing process because most of them had phrases in them that triggered the old (and the new) censoring logic. My suggestion is that I could perhaps process opinion.ms files as a special case and ignore anything that was in a comment, so we'd skip anything naughty that was in them that came as part of the standard opinion.ms template. Does that sound like it might help? -- Alan Burlison --
