ID: 1249
User Update by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: Open
Bug Type: URL related
Description: url_parse() is a bit too strict

If you get URL as user input it can be bogus. parse_url could
be very useful to find if the URL is bogus and what parts
of it are bogus. Another point is, that even bogus looking
URL's could be valid (partial only). Also i believe
that parse_url('path?') wouldnt have quere set (although i
cant verify it at the moment).
And the last point is correctness. Even if it is not
significant, it would be nice if it behaved the expected way.

Previous Comments:

[2001-02-22 10:56:18] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I, personally, don't see why it has to parse such bogus URLs
at all... Any arguments?


[2001-02-10 14:56:42] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
refiled against 4.0.


[2001-02-10 13:12:04] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is a real bug, although relatively minor.


[1999-03-20 18:26:16] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is a minor glitch, though parse_url('?') returns path
set, but query unset. After looking at url_parse() it seeems,
that is would be more rational to test for subs[7].rm_so <= lentgh
Equality case makes more sense for all the comparisons (maybe
except for scheme where it wouldnt matter). Result of this
would be, that any part that has its prefix present but value
absent and is at the end of string would be set (though empty)
Examples: '?' - query should be set, 'path#' fragment should
be set, 'http://' hostname should be set to empty
Another glitch is regexp for user:pass@host:port part. Now
the regexp is ^(([^@:]+)(:([^@:]+))?@)?([^:@]+)(:([^:@]+))?
while i suggest ^(([^@:]*)(:([^@:]*))?@)?([^:@]*)(:([^:@]*))?
This is also in accordance with regex for the whole url.


Full Bug description available at:

PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to