Richard Lynch wrote: > I have taken the liberty of making an RFC for this: > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/url_dots > > Feel free to add/edit it as fit, particularly since it's my first use > of that RFC wiki, and I'm not good at wiki markup, and I probably > missed something from this thread. > > I intentionally left out the ?a_b=1&a.b=2 because that seemed to me to > be beyond the scope, since ?a_b=1&a_b=2 is equally problematic in > PHP... > > That said, I am now leaning towards not trying to be BC, and just > dropping 'a_b' entirely. > > It seems unlikely that anybody doing anything "sane" to attempt to > reconstruct their original keys is going to be hurt by PHP not messing > them up anymore. > > Most likely, their revisionary code is simply not going to find any > 'a_b' to blindly revert to 'a.b' anymore, and the 'a.b' is going to > just sail through. > > Of course, their a.b might be a^b or a*b or whatever, but whatever it > is, PHP not messing it up will just mean their code won't find > anything to "un-do" any more. > > I did think of one other issue though: > > There may be some really funky character that is valid in the URL, but > that is not kosher for an array/hash key which is currently being > masked... > > It would still have to be masked if such a character exists... > > I can't think of any such character, but what with i18n of DNS records > and whatnot these days, I am woefully ignorant of what might be in the > keys. > > I put that into the RFC already. >
Thanks Richard, I was struggling to get to time to write this up - all seems fine to me and just as discussed on-list. Thanks again, Nathan -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
