0
0
mirror of https://github.com/ezyang/htmlpurifier.git synced 2024-12-22 08:21:52 +00:00
- Move SLOW to docs/enduser-slow.html and add code examples
- Update README and WYSIWYG
- Add warning to HTMLPurifier.func.php about naming similarities

git-svn-id: http://htmlpurifier.org/svnroot/htmlpurifier/trunk@635 48356398-32a2-884e-a903-53898d9a118a
This commit is contained in:
Edward Z. Yang 2007-01-11 22:28:44 +00:00
parent 3ad6239dc3
commit e2cc37724b
7 changed files with 140 additions and 50 deletions

2
NEWS
View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ NEWS ( CHANGELOG and HISTORY ) HTMLPurifier
(major feature release)
1.3.3, unknown release date, may be dropped
(security/bugfix/minor feature release)
! Moved SLOW to docs/enduser-slow.html and added code examples
1.3.2, released 2006-12-25
! HTMLPurifier object now accepts configuration arrays, no need to manually

25
README
View File

@ -1,13 +1,22 @@
README
All about HTMLPurifier
All about HTML Purifier
HTMLPurifier is an HTML filtering solution. It uses a unique combination of
robust whitelists and agressive parsing to ensure that not only are XSS
attacks thwarted, but the resulting HTML is standards compliant.
HTML Purifier is an HTML filtering solution that uses a unique combination
of robust whitelists and agressive parsing to ensure that not only are
XSS attacks thwarted, but the resulting HTML is standards compliant.
See INSTALL on how to use the library. See docs/ for more developer-oriented
documentation as well as some code examples. Users of TinyMCE or FCKeditor
may be especially interested in WYSIWYG.
HTML Purifier is oriented towards richly formatted documents from
untrusted sources that require CSS and a full tag-set. This library can
be configured to accept a more restrictive set of tags, but it won't be
as efficient as more bare-bones parsers. It will, however, do the job
right, which may be more important.
HTMLPurifier can be found on the web at: http://hp.jpsband.org/
Places to go:
* See INSTALL for a quick installation guide
* See docs/ for developer-oriented documentation, code examples and
an in-depth installation guide.
* See WYSIWYG for information on editors like TinyMCE and FCKeditor
HTML Purifier can be found on the web at: http://hp.jpsband.org/

40
SLOW
View File

@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
SLOW
also known as the HELP ME LIBRARY IS TOO SLOW MY PAGE TAKE TOO LONG LOAD page
HTML Purifier is a very powerful library. But with power comes great
responsibility, or, at least, longer execution times. Remember, this
library isn't lightly grazing over submitted HTML: it's deconstructing
the whole thing, rigorously checking the parts, and then putting it
back together.
So, if it so turns out that HTML Purifier is kinda too slow for outbound
filtering, you've got a few options:
1. Inbound filtering - perform filtering of HTML when it's submitted by the
user. Since the user is already submitting something, an extra half a
second tacked on to the load time probably isn't going to be that huge of
a problem. Then, displaying the content is a simple a manner of outputting
it directly from your database/filesystem. The trouble with this method is
that your user loses the original text, and when doing edits, will be
handling the filtered text. While this may be a good thing, especially if
you're using a WYSIWYG editor, it can also result in data-loss if a user
makes a typo.
2. Caching the filtered output - accept the submitted text and put it
unaltered into the database, but then also generate a filtered version and
stash that in the database. Serve the filtered version to readers, and the
unaltered version to editors. If need be, you can invalidate the cache and
have the cached filtered version be regenerated on the first page view. Pros?
Full data retention. Cons? It's more complicated, and opens other editors
up to XSS if they are using a WYSIWYG editor (to fix that, they'd have to
be able to get their hands on the *really* original text served in plaintext
mode).
In short, inbound filtering is almost as simple as outbound filtering, but
it has some drawbacks which cannot be fixed unless you save both the original
and the filtered versions.
There is a third option: profile and optimize HTMLPurifier yourself. Be sure
to report back your results if you decide to do that! Especially if you
port HTML Purifier to C++. ;-)

View File

@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ HTML Purifier is perfect for filtering pure-HTML input from WYSIWYG editors.
Enough said.
There is a proof-of-concept integration of HTML Purifier with the Mantis
bugtracker at http://hp.jpsband.org/mantis/
bugtracker at http://hp.jpsband.org/mantis/ You can see notes on how
this integration was acheived at http://hp.jpsband.org/mantis_notes.txt

116
docs/enduser-slow.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<meta name="description" content="Explains how to speed up HTML Purifier through caching or inbound filtering." />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./style.css" />
<title>Speeding up HTML Purifier - HTML Purifier</title>
</head><body>
<h1 class="subtitled">Speeding up HTML Purifier</h1>
<div class="subtitle">...also known as the HELP ME LIBRARY IS TOO SLOW MY PAGE TAKE TOO LONG page</div>
<div id="filing">Filed under End-User</div>
<div id="index">Return to the <a href="index.html">index</a>.</div>
<p>HTML Purifier is a very powerful library. But with power comes great
responsibility, in the form of longer execution times. Remember, this
library isn't lightly grazing over submitted HTML: it's deconstructing
the whole thing, rigorously checking the parts, and then putting it back
together. </p>
<p>So, if it so turns out that HTML Purifier is kinda too slow for outbound
filtering, you've got a few options: </p>
<h2>Inbound filtering</h2>
<p>Perform filtering of HTML when it's submitted by the user. Since the
user is already submitting something, an extra half a second tacked on
to the load time probably isn't going to be that huge of a problem.
Then, displaying the content is a simple a manner of outputting it
directly from your database/filesystem. The trouble with this method is
that your user loses the original text, and when doing edits, will be
handling the filtered text. While this may be a good thing, especially
if you're using a WYSIWYG editor, it can also result in data-loss if a
user makes a typo. </p>
<p>Example (non-functional):</p>
<pre>&lt;?php
/**
* FORM SUBMISSION PAGE
* display_error($message) : displays nice error page with message
* display_success() : displays a nice success page
* display_form() : displays the HTML submission form
* database_insert($html) : inserts data into database as new row
*/
if (!empty($_POST)) {
require_once '/path/to/library/HTMLPurifier.auto.php';
require_once 'HTMLPurifier.func.php';
$dirty_html = isset($_POST['html']) ? $_POST['html'] : false;
if (!$dirty_html) {
display_error('You must write some HTML!');
}
$html = HTMLPurifier($dirty_html);
database_insert($html);
display_success();
// notice that $dirty_html is *not* saved
} else {
display_form();
}
?&gt;</pre>
<h2>Caching the filtered output</h2>
<p>Accept the submitted text and put it unaltered into the database, but
then also generate a filtered version and stash that in the database.
Serve the filtered version to readers, and the unaltered version to
editors. If need be, you can invalidate the cache and have the cached
filtered version be regenerated on the first page view. Pros? Full data
retention. Cons? It's more complicated, and opens other editors up to
XSS if they are using a WYSIWYG editor (to fix that, they'd have to be
able to get their hands on the *really* original text served in
plaintext mode). </p>
<p>Example (non-functional):</p>
<pre>&lt;?php
/**
* VIEW PAGE
* display_error($message) : displays nice error page with message
* cache_get($id) : retrieves HTML from fast cache (db or file)
* cache_insert($id, $html) : inserts good HTML into cache system
* database_get($id) : retrieves raw HTML from database
*/
$id = isset($_GET['id']) ? (int) $_GET['id'] : false;
if (!$id) {
display_error('Must specify ID.');
exit;
}
$html = cache_get($id); // filesystem or database
if ($html === false) {
// cache didn't have the HTML, generate it
$raw_html = database_get($id);
require_once '/path/to/library/HTMLPurifier.auto.php';
require_once 'HTMLPurifier.func.php';
$html = HTMLPurifier($raw_html);
cache_insert($id, $html);
}
echo $html;
?&gt;</pre>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p>In short, inbound filtering is the simple option and caching is the
robust option (albeit with bigger storage requirements). </p>
<p>There is a third option, independent of the two we've discussed: profile
and optimize HTMLPurifier yourself. Be sure to report back your results
if you decide to do that! Especially if you port HTML Purifier to C++.
<tt>;-)</tt></p>
</body>
</html>

View File

@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ information for casual developers using HTML Purifier.</p>
<dt><a href="enduser-youtube.html">Embedding YouTube videos</a></dt>
<dd>Explains how to safely allow the embedding of flash from trusted sites.</dd>
<dt><a href="enduser-slow.html">Speeding up HTML Purifier</a></dt>
<dd>Explains how to speed up HTML Purifier through caching or inbound filtering.</dd>
</dl>
<h2>Development</h2>

View File

@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
* this is efficient for instances when you only use HTML Purifier
* on a few of your pages, it murders bytecode caching. You still
* need to add HTML Purifier to your path.
* @note ''HTMLPurifier()'' is NOT the same as ''new HTMLPurifier()''
*/
function HTMLPurifier($html, $config = null) {