Geoffrey Young wrote: >>However I'm not sure your patch does the right thing re UTF-8, unless there's >>some magic involved that I'm not seeing :-/ I'm no expert on how to deal with >>UTF-8 in C (or even in Perl) but it looks like you're only addressing 8bit >>encodings. >> > > > ok, after some to and fro with robin over on #modperl it looks like we discovered a >few > things... > > first, Apache::Util is not UTF-8 compliant, since it currently mangles C strings > byte-by-byte, which introduces the possibility that all or part of a 2-byte character > could be mangled. > > second, the patch follows suit and expands the range of 1-byte characters it mangles, > which makes it more non-UTF-8 friendly. > > so, basically what we're thinking is that the new Apache::Util is more secure for > non-UTF-8 encodings, while more broken for UTF-8. but UTF-8 is unusable with >Apache::Util > in either case, so the patch is probably a good thing. > > other ideas/eyeballs are welcome here, since we've just been going over the spec and > making some conjectures - neither of us is an expert here by any means. > > once other people chime in, we can whip up a doc patch for Apache::Util as well.
Since Apache::Util wasn't ported to mod_perl 2.0 and I was thinking to do that at some point. So we can work on the Apache::Util for 2.0 and then backport it to 1.x. Sounds like a more promising scenario. So what spec are you working with? Can we just reap the functionality from some Perl core module in bleadperl that does it right? _____________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
