According to Andreas Jung:
> >> Tres' patch is looking in fine to me. I don't see a need right now
> >> for dropping reST with having file inclusing *removed*.
> >
> > Has anyone written tests for Tres' patch?  Apparently no one wrote
> > adequate tests for the last hot fix, which helped put us in this
> > situation.
> I've written some tests (checked in on the trunk). They test the 'raw'
> and 'include' directives

Thank you, Andreas!

We make extensive use of reST (via ZWiki) and it would be very hard for
us to do without reST.

> @Tres: what is the reason to keep the 'raw' code in docutils? I am in favor
> to remove it and replace it with a NotImplementedError exception (same as 
> for the the 'include' code). The related tests (for reStructredText and 
> ZReST are commented for now) do except a NotImplementedError for a 'raw'
> directive.

In ZWiki reST pages you can use the 'raw' directive to call
e.g. python scripts (useful for custom index generation, ...). If it
goes away due to security reasons, so be it. But if there is a way to
keep the 'raw' functionality and remove only 'file' and 'include', we
are certanly in favour of that...


[EMAIL PROTECTED]                Fax: +43/1/31336/9207
Zentrum fuer Informatikdienste, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Austria
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to