Andrew Dalke schrieb: >> I find there is a difference between "urllib behaves >> non-intuitively" and "urllib gives result A for parameters B and C, >> but should give result D instead". Can you please add specific examples >> to your report that demonstrate the difference between implemented >> and expected behavior? > > No. > > I consider the "../" cases to be unimportant edge cases and > I would rather people fixed the other problems highlighted in the > text I copied from 4Suite's Uri.py -- like improperly allowing a > relative URL as the base url, which I incorrectly assumed was > legit - and that others have reported on python-dev, easily found > with Google.
It still should be possible to come up with examples for these as well, no? For example, if you pass a relative URI as the base URI, what would you like to see happen? > If I only add test cases for "../" then I believe that that's all that > will be fixed. That's true. Actually, it's probably not true; it will only get fixed if some volunteer contributes a fix. > Finally, I see that my report is a dup. SF search is poor. As > Nick Coghlan reported, Paul Jimenez has a replacement for urlparse. > Summarized in > http://www.python.org/dev/summary/2006-04-01_2006-04-15/ > It was submitted in spring as a patch - SF# 1462525 at > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1462525&group_id=5470&atid=305470 > which I didn't find in my earlier searching. So do you think this patch meets your requirements? This topic (URL parsing) is not only inherently difficult to implement, it is just as tedious to review. Without anybody reviewing the contributed code, it's certain that it will never be incorporated. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
