>> Instead of using simple sanitizing function users are forced to check
>> for errors. How good is that? It makes code complex or unreliable.
>
> Explain me again how checking for errors makes code unreliable?
OR unreliable. If you check for errors, sanitizing code is complex. If you
don't check
Instead of using simple sanitizing function users are forced to check for
errors. How good is that? It makes code complex or unreliable.
Explain me again how checking for errors makes code unreliable?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)25
> > Should really theses functions discard the whole string for a single
> > incomplete sequence ?
>
> I think since it is not possible to recover true content of the string,
> it is ok to return failure value. Cutting it in random places or
> ignoring problems doesn't seem a good idea - it mig
>> Should really theses functions discard the whole string for a single
>> incomplete sequence ?
>
> I think since it is not possible to recover true content of the string,
> it is ok to return failure value. Cutting it in random places or
> ignoring problems doesn't seem a good idea - it might lea
Should really theses functions discard the whole string for a single
incomplete sequence ?
I think since it is not possible to recover true content of the string,
it is ok to return failure value. Cutting it in random places or
ignoring problems doesn't seem a good idea - it might lead to all
Hi,
The htmlspecialchars and htmlentities functions since version 5.2.5 return an
empty string when the input contains at least a single invalid or incomplete
unicode sequence.
What I understood is that this change was made to avoid reading more chars in
the buffer than it actually contained.
