Patch for valid XHTML 1.0 Strict code and better compliance with Drupal coding standard

Hi, and thanks for the patch. I'm only semi-online right now due to travel but will review this in detail when I return. Assuming your code is clean, the patch is very likely to be accepted.

Scott

{sigh} The patch that is attached to this node doesn't want to download for me without HTML formatting. Could you please send me an email copy of the raw patch for review, now that I'm home from my travel?

Thanks.

Scott
scott at 4th dot com

Greetings!

Sorry it's taken me so long to get around to this patch. I've been working on it tonight, and am prepared to accept it with one change.

You have this SQL statement:

SELECT count(*) FROM {node} n left join {scheduler} s on n.nid=s.nid where n.status=0 and n.moderate=1 and s.nid is null;

I think we actually need this:

SELECT count(*) FROM node n left join {scheduler} s on n.nid=s.nid where (n.status=0 or n.moderate=1) and s.nid is null;

(and also similar changes for the SQL that is invoked if scheduler module is not present).

The reason for this is that sites that don't use moderation regard unpublished nodes as "awaiting approval", so the condition of a node awaiting action in this context is *either* that it is unpublished *or* that it is flagged for moderation. The and condition relating to the scheduler row being absent goes outside the parentheses because any node that is scheduled is considered (in the context of HOF) to have been "approved" by an editor even though it's not yet visible on the wire.

I'd appreciate your feedback on this proposed change. I'm going to go ahead and commit this as stated above, but I am open to negotiation on further revision to the SQL if this doesn't meet both our needs.

Kind regards,

Scott

Oops...In the second SQL line I missed the {} around the {node} table. They're present in the actual code.

I also found a number of other places in the SQL where a conditional on {node}.moderate was needed. These are all updated. I'm going to try to roll in a couple more bugfixes and small features, then will commit the new version.

Scott

No one has commented or complained about the current behavior since 2005. I'm going to consider this issue resolved, but would reopen it if people feel the current interpretation is flawed. This is a largely subjective issue, as frjo has pointed out.