Actually as I think about this.... we need to add some sanitization rules.

On Sunday, 9 September 2012 18:33:50 UTC-5, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>
> No. The wiki does not support template language at all. It only supports 
> URLs @//// and components @{component:....}.
>
> Massimo
>
> On Sunday, 9 September 2012 18:13:43 UTC-5, Andrew W wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Massimo,   I'm testing it out now. 
>>
>> Does it support html helpers like H1("Hello")  or {{ type python stuff 
>> here}}  ?
>> In another thread, the topic of WYSIWYG editors came up, but I think that 
>> was in relation to just doing Markmin text entry.  Does a WYSIWYG editor 
>> make sense for render='html' ?  
>>
>> I'm doing a website for friends who are not computer literate - they 
>> wouldn't know a <p> from a <blockquote>.   I would like to keep the page 
>> updating as simple as possible  (which was an advantage of markmin, but 
>> without all the html bells and whistles).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:22:48 PM UTC+12, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>>>
>>> Now in trunk:
>>>
>>> auth.wiki(render='html')
>>>
>>> will allow html, will do autolink, oembed and allows @//// syntax as 
>>> well as @{component:...} syntax.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 8 September 2012 20:34:25 UTC-5, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the source code... this is already possible.
>>>>
>>>> Wiki(render=lambda page: page.body)
>>>>
>>>> I now exposed in auth.wiki(render=lambda page: page.body). This option 
>>>> will allow html in wiki. We may want to allow autolinks as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 8 September 2012 19:42:18 UTC-5, Anthony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:16:32 PM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it can be made an option but I really hate WYSIWG. I think 
>>>>>> wiki markup are superior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it really depends on the end user -- some folks just aren't 
>>>>> realistically going to learn wiki markup and will expect WYSIWYG. The 
>>>>> Stack 
>>>>> Overflow approach isn't a bad compromise.
>>>>>
>>>>

-- 



Reply via email to