Censored word should not censoring URL

[Arantor]

No, it is as I said - a word is defined as a collection of characters that make up a word, with a character at each end that is not a character that can be part of a word. Except the definition of what a 'word character' is very, very broad and varies depending on language.

[kat]

I thought that's what I said, in a rather more garbled way.

Either way, a 100% accurate censor is nigh-on impossible, especially where URLs are concerned, ay?

[Arantor]

Well, yes and no. The censor has no idea what a single word is. The concept physically does not exist in the way the censor works.

All it knows is that there are certain characters that can be part of a word, a lot of other characters that can't. And that a 'word' is where it finds a collection of one, with the other before and after it.

[Kindred]

and k@...   your definition means that the duke in www.duke.com would be replaced.... since it is separated form the rest by periods...


Seriously, there is no good way to do it.

[kat]

No, I can see that.

Thing is, however it's done, something's bound to screw it up, innit?

[Arantor]

After re-reviewing this, it's clear that we can't have the censor work in this fashion. Unfortunately that does mean moving to the declined board