![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ae26b49096d78856a33e8ae9b61037c3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
30 May
2006
30 May
'06
1:03 a.m.
Turns out the one filter I looked at was already answering either :propagate or :no-propagate, so on the fly I pronounced that a new standard, tweaked the code to respect either in re propagation and otherwise do the usual test of before/after value change. So is this an API change or bug fix? :) ken