Quote:Wouldn't have to check and see if it was the original poster, necessarily. If one admin with access modified another admin's post that had html in it, it'd be nice if it kept the HTML instead of killing it.
I don't know if you would strip HTML if someone without access modified an HTML post, or if you would just deny them access to modify that post, but either way I think it should depend on the HTML access setting for the person modifying, and not just whether or not they started that post (if that whole thing made any sense).
But really, going back to my original statement, this may be a lot of trouble, and you shouldn't have moderators and admins running around that you can't trust. I just wanted to point it out, but I don't think it's a huge issue.
It now works like this:
if someone modified the post, the script no longer checks if the author who created the post is allowed to use HTML. Instead, it checks if the person who modified the post is allowed to. So when an admin modifies an admin post, it should keep html enabled (at least when all admins are allowed to use HTML)
Quote:Why is that <search for> string so big anyway?
actually it isn't that big, I already saw much bigger ones
. It shouldn't be a big issue in most cases. Only when you install a mod which modifies the complete html output of the preferences screen you'll get problems.
Quote: Why don't you place the [HTML] in stead of #enable_html ?
I choosed #enable_html because it is so similar to the already existing #nosmilies tag. But if you want [HTML] instead, simple replace every occurance of #enable_html in the .mod file by [HTML].