I demand that Josip Rodin may or may not have written... > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:17:00PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote: >>>> Arguably, pkgreport.cgi etc. not coping with & where & is expected >>>> is correct behaviour, but there are one or two browsers which don't >>>> decode character entities in URLs (in the case of at least one such >>>> browser, it was a design decision based on & in URLs often being a >>>> literal & rather than marking the start of a character entity).
>>>> Better to be liberal in what you accept :-) >>> Funny you should say that, in light of... >>> X-Message-Flag: Outlook Express is broken. Upgrade to mail(1). IMHO >>> this is not a bug, it's a request for supporting broken browsers. >> Any browser which displays >> <a href="index.html>Home page</a> >> as a link, containing the text "Home page", to index.html is supporting >> broken HTML; should it simply fail to display it? > Uhh, I don't see how that is relevant to what we have here. It's not broken > to use & to represent the ampersand character in anchor tags; on the > contrary, it is exactly according to the specification. Wrong end of the stick...? :-) The browser rendering the above broken HTML is handling errors. The CGI script which understands & is also handling errors. Both are cases of being liberal with what you accept; the browser not interpreting & in a URL is a case of not being strict in what you send. [snip] > It's unfortunate that there are browsers that do things otherwise. But that > still doesn't mean our spec-abiding (law-abiding, peace-loving :) software > has a _bug_ if it doesn't handle such quirks. That would be a nice bonus, > but it comes second to handling the normal stuff. I'm not arguing... <clicky> <clicky> severity 172132 grave ;-) -- | Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington, | RPC, Spec+3, A3010 | s zap,tartarus,org | Northumberland | BBC M128, Linux PC | @ | Toon Army | Let's keep the pound sterling Internal consistency is valued more than efficient service.
