On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:34:02AM -0400, Michel Fortin wrote: > Le 2010-08-24 à 8:49, Louis-David Mitterrand a écrit : > > > Actually I save the forum posts to the DB in non-converted markdown and > > filtered of any unwanted html. > > > > Should I save the raw unfiltered post to DB and then (1) expand markdown > > and (2) filter with StripScripts only when _displaying_ the post? That > > would entail keeping some potentially "unclean" posts in the DB and > > having to StripScripts them repeatedly. > > The only important thing for correctness of the output is to apply the > Markdown filter before ScripScripts. The rest is just optimization. > > For performance reasons it might be a good idea to save the > (Markdown+StripScripts)-processed text in the DB, but if you allows > users to edit their posts once published it'd be more convenient for > them to have start from the original unprocessed Markdown source. So > you might want to save either one, or both.
Food for thought :) That's a good suggestion, have a 'source' column (for edits) in the DB besides the processed 'message' (for display). And use a DB trigger to update 'message'. Thanks, -- http://www.cruisefish.net _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
