Consider this:

    $ wget http://schwinge.homeip.net/~thomas/tmp/cutpaste_filter.tar.bz2
    $ wget http://schwinge.homeip.net/~thomas/tmp/cutpaste_filter.patch
    
    $ tar -xj < cutpaste_filter.tar.bz2
    $ cd cutpaste_filter/
    $ ./render_locally
    $ find "$PWD".rendered/ -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -H -E 'FOO|BAR'
    [notice one FOO in there]
    $ rm -rf .ikiwiki "$PWD".rendered
    
    $ cp /usr/share/perl5/IkiWiki/Plugin/cutpaste.pm .library/IkiWiki/Plugin/
    $ patch -p0 < ../cutpaste_filter.patch
    $ ./render_locally
    $ find "$PWD".rendered/ -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -H -E 'FOO|BAR'
    [correct; notice no more FOO]

I guess this needs a general audit -- there are other places where `preprocess`
is being doing without `filter`ing first, for example in the same file, `copy`
function.

--[[tschwinge]]

> So, in English, page text inside a cut directive will not be filtered.
> Because the cut directive takes the text during the scan pass, before
> filtering happens.
> 
> Commit 192ce7a238af9021b0fd6dd571f22409af81ebaf and
> [[bugs/po_vs_templates]] has to do with this.
> There I decided that filter hooks should *only* act on the complete
> text of a page. 
> 
> I also suggested that anything that wants to reliably
> s/FOO/BAR/ should probably use a sanitize hook, not a filter hook.
> I think that would make sense in this example.
> 
> I don't see any way to make cut text be filtered while satisfying these
> constraints, without removing cutpaste's ability to have forward pastes
> of text cut laster in the page. (That does seems like an increasingly
> bad idea..) --[[Joey]]

> > OK -- so the FOO/BAR thing was only a very stripped-down example, of
> > course, and the real thing is being observed with the
> > *[[plugins/contrib/getfield]]* plugin.  This one needs to run *before*
> > `preprocess`ing, for its `{{$page#field}}` syntax is (a) meant to be usable
> > inside ikiwiki directives, and (b) the field values are meant to still be
> > `preprocess`ed before being embedded.  That's why it's using the `filter`
> > hook instead of `sanitize`.

> > Would adding another kind of hook be a way to fix this?  My idea is that
> > *cut* (and others) would then take their data not during `scan`ning, but
> > *after* `filter`ing.

> > --[[tschwinge]]
