Thank you, Drew.

On 5/27/24 03:08, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Issue resolved:
>
> https://status.sr.ht/issues/2024-05-27-build-queue/

Hello all,

I have not made any changes to my build server configuration, but I am 
experiencing an issue: https://builds.sr.ht/~brettgilio/job/1232048

Any thoughts appreciated!

----

Error fetching logs for task "None"

----

arch: null

On 7/22/2022 1:04 PM, jack gleeson wrote:

> ---
> This patch adds del to the html sanitize
> whitelist, allowing strikethroughs.
>   srht/markdown.py | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/srht/markdown.py b/srht/markdown.py
> index 5005542..4b8431b 100644
> --- a/srht/markdown.py
> +++ b/srht/markdown.py
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ import mistletoe as m
>   from mistletoe.span_token import SpanToken, RawText

On 7/22/2022 3:05 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On Fri Jul 22, 2022 at 1:38 AM CEST, Jack Gleeson wrote:
>>>> I'm not seeing where in this patch it is recognizing the ~~ notation.
>> That's something built in to the mistletoe library. It also includes
>> support for tables - also not in CommonMark. I'm just providing a
>> function to render the existing strikethrough tokens
>> as strikethroughs.
> Ugh, that's annoying. The whole point of commonmark was to put a stop to
> all of these private vendor extensions.
So, to clarify, is this patch dead?

On 7/21/2022 6:38 PM, Jack Gleeson wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm not seeing where in this patch it is recognizing the ~~ notation.
> That's something built in to the mistletoe library.
> It also includes support for tables - also not in CommonMark.
> I'm just providing a function to render the existing strikethrough tokens
> as strikethroughs.
>
>

Understood, thank you.

On 7/21/2022 6:30 PM, Jack Gleeson wrote:

> This patch works with the ~~ notation and recognises it as strikethrough.
>
> Use of <del> in place of <s> was just personal preference, I'm agnostic
> on which is more suitable.
>
> I didn't realise CommonMark still hadn't agreed on including
> strikethrough in the specification. I see the value in including them,
> but recognise that it is not in the standard. In which case, it's fair
> to call this out of scope and ddevault can ignore this patch.
>
>
>

On 7/21/2022 4:13 PM, Drew DeVault wrote:
>
> We use CommonMark, so it would have to be standardized there first.


In that case, I am totally fine with omitting <del> from the sanitizer.

Hello Jack

On 7/20/2022 9:14 PM, jack gleeson wrote:
> @@ -181,7 +186,7 @@ _sanitizer = bleach.sanitizer.Cleaner(
>           "q",
>           "h1", "h2", "h3", "h4", "h5", "h6",
>           "details", "summary",
> -        "abbr", "dfn",
> +        "abbr", "dfn", "del"
>       ],
>       attributes={**bleach.sanitizer.ALLOWED_ATTRIBUTES, **_sanitizer_attrs},
>       protocols=[

Hello Liele

On 7/18/2022 8:57 AM, Liele Zerau wrote:
>> Is that functionality already implemented, or is that something which
>> is being proposed?
> Already implemented – see here:
>
>      https://man.sr.ht/git.sr.ht/#referencing-tickets-in-git-commit-messages

Thank you for that information. Good to know. Drew is not fond of the 
idea I proposed, but I learned a good bit.

Brett

Hello Akspecs

On 7/17/2022 7:26 PM, akspecs wrote:
> and then, the linked todo will automatically be marked as fixed on the
> tracker if the patch is merged upstream.


Is that functionality already implemented, or is that something which is 
being proposed? If it is already implemented, then it would be 
imperative that data be retained in trackers as pre-populated information.

Brett Gilio