Correct spelling/non-standard use of "therefor"

The patch applies well and I guess there are no other selling errors as far as I went through the script and so it could be changed to RTBC.
If any more errors please point out.

Thanks @vegantriathlete and @prash_98! We need to fix spelling errors as part of #2622992: Run a spellchecker against core and fix all the errors in comments, though. See:
https://www.drupal.org/core/scope#spelling

Hmm, I did not realize that!

So a couple questions then. Regarding @prash_98's review:

I guess there are no other selling errors as far as I went through the script

@prash_98, it would be helpful if you could describe specifically what script you went through and what you were checking for.

If the scope of this issue is to correct mis-usage of a word that is not caught by a spellchecker, then the scope should include checking all of core for that error. I did this:

[ibnsina:drupal | Sat 08:47:37] $ grep -ri "therefor\b" *
core/modules/editor/src/EditorXssFilter/Standard.php:    // can be malicious (and therefor they are inherently unsafe), whereas for
core/modules/editor/src/EditorXssFilter/Standard.php:    // Therefor, we want to be smarter still. We want to take into account which
core/tests/Drupal/KernelTests/Core/Entity/ContentEntityChangedTest.php:    // timestamp every time. Therefor we check if the changed timestamp is
core/tests/Drupal/Tests/Core/EventSubscriber/ActiveLinkResponseFilterTest.php:      // … and therefor, on *any* tag, really.

So let's at least fix all of those. It would be good to confirm whether the spellcheck meta would catch this or not.

Thanks!

I guess "therefor" is similar to "thereto" and "therefrom" which I actually do use. I guess I never realized that it was only a homonym of "therefore" and not the same word! And maybe I've spelled it wrong in the past. Today I learned. :)

Ok will surely take care of that @xjm

DrupalCon Vienna, i am looking into this.

I am going to review the patch according to https://www.drupal.org/contributor-tasks/review

I'm mentoring @snte on this at DrupalCon Vienna.

Steffen is working on re-doing the patch for 8.5.x

updated metadata

I updated the patch to roll against 8.5.x. No additional changes.

I'm testing the patch now at Drupalcon Vienna 2017

* the patch applies cleanly against 8.5.x
* before patch: (in core/modules/editor/src/EditorXssFilter/Standard.php)

* after patch:

@narnua Thanks for your review! Reviews are crucial for issue progress.

However, posting screenshots of your codebase is not helpful, since the automated testing infrastructure tells us whether the patch applies correctly. It is more helpful if you first read the issue to understand its purpose and then write a review that contains your thoughts on the change. I haven't given you credit on this issue yet, but if you help us with another review then that's another chance for getting credit.

+++ b/core/modules/editor/src/EditorXssFilter/Standard.php
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ public static function filterXss($html, FilterFormatInterface $format, FilterFor
+    // Therefore, we want to be smarter still. We want to take into account which

This line has to be re-wrapped since Drupal coding standards specify 80 characters as the maximum line length. After this fix and a review, this patch should be ready to be committed!

@narnua, @lauriii, thanks for testing. Sorry, for missing the coding standards. Re-wrapped the line to meet Drupal coding standards.

Checking out patch #22 now:

* patch apply is clean
* patch only affects intended code - diff shows only the lines with the word therefor have been changed
* the following line is now properly wrapped

    // Therefore, we want to be smarter still. We want to take into account
    // which HTML tags are allowed and forbidden by the text format we're

* Reading through the issue, I recognise the need for this change as 'therefor' is semantically different from the word 'therefore' (disclaimer: non-native English speaker so can't dive much deeper into the linguistics). As the proposed change only affects comments, I see no reason to hold back the change.

So, @lauriii & @snte - now looks good to go to me.

Thanks all for carefully considering this issue. Credited @narnua following their checklist style review. Thanks!