According to Gilles Detillieux:
>According to Budd, S.:
>> Just a bit of clutter. The standard reference for this problem is
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#h-B.2.2
>>
>
>Thanks. That does make it clear that &foo; entities can be used in
>URIs, like it or not. It also seems to be referring only to URIs used
>in anchors in HTML. I don't think they're suggesting changing the CGI
>interface standard.
>
>What this means, from a CGI implementation perspective, is that you need
>to support BOTH. Their quest to remove any supposed ambiguity arising
>from naked ampersands in HTML really does nothing to remove the ambiguity
>in CGI scripts. So, I think we need to recognize all of these forms:
>
>?x=1&y=2 - standard CGI data from GET or POST of form
>?x=1&y=2 - URI in anchor-style link
>?x=1&y=2 - URI in anchor-style link (alternate form)
>
>If I'm not mistaken, however, the %38 form is used to embed an ampersand
>into a CGI variable, so we don't parse it as a variable separator:
>
>?x=a%38b
>
>Is that right?
Correct. Else there would be no means of putting such special characters
in CGI parameters.
>They also recommend using ";" as an alternate separator, so we should
>also handle
>
>?x=1;y=2
>and use this in Display::createURL(), if we're to follow their
>recommendations. Does anyone see a problem with using a semicolon in
>this manner?
I disagree with that since AFAIK a semicolon does not necessarily need
to be url-encoded.
Could cause trouble if a semicolon is part of a parameter.
regs,
Torsten
--
InWise - Wirtschaftlich-Wissenschaftlicher Internet Service GmbH
Waldhofstra�e 14 Tel: +49-4101-403605
D-25474 Ellerbek Fax: +49-4101-403606
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.inwise.de
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
