>> I'm not so much worried about the user in this case, a few explodes
>> will keep them happy. I'm more worried about the behavior of
>> parse_url being just plain lacking.
>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Bug+20308 should be entitled to
>> everybit as much parsing as
>> http://joe:[EMAIL PROT
On November 29, 2002 12:41 pm, Sara Golemon wrote:
> >> It looks like php_url_parse can be modified to return user and host
> >> for mailto schemes without making it a 'special case', but that would
> >> also remove the current 'path' index which would break existing PHP
> >> code ((bad)).
> >>
> >
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Sara Golemon wrote:
> I'm not so much worried about the user in this case, a few explodes will
> keep them happy. I'm more worried about the behavior of parse_url being
> just plain lacking. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Bug+20308 should be
> entitled to everybit as much
>> It looks like php_url_parse can be modified to return user and host
>> for mailto schemes without making it a 'special case', but that would
>> also remove the current 'path' index which would break existing PHP
>> code ((bad)).
>>
>> So we can (A) put in a special case, or (B) not modify the fu
On November 29, 2002 01:05 am, Sara Golemon wrote:
> >> I disagree with this, the current behaviour is imho wrong.
> >>
> >> mailto: is a url, rejecting the patch because it introduces a special
> >> case, is not a good thing. parse_url() is for _all_ url's, not just
> >> http:// url's, and beside
>> I disagree with this, the current behaviour is imho wrong.
>>
>> mailto: is a url, rejecting the patch because it introduces a special
>> case, is not a good thing. parse_url() is for _all_ url's, not just
>> http:// url's, and besides, the current syntax for mailto is
>> completely valid, and
On November 27, 2002 04:32 pm, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara "Pollita" Golemon wrote:
> > > That was one of the comments I was looking for "Is this really
> > > necessary?" After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it
> > > apart. I'm not against givin
> On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara "Pollita" Golemon wrote:
> > That was one of the comments I was looking for "Is this really necessary?"
> > After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
> > against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
> >
On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara "Pollita" Golemon wrote:
> That was one of the comments I was looking for "Is this really necessary?"
> After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
> against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
>
> Is that
That was one of the comments I was looking for "Is this really necessary?"
After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
Is that a -1 then?
> I am not so sure that adding special cases for things li
I am not so sure that adding special cases for things like mailto: and so on
is a good idea. The code works identically to how it worked in 4.2.3 and
prior.
Ilia
On November 27, 2002 04:19 pm, Sara "Pollita" Golemon wrote:
> While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed #20
> While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed #20308.
>
> User complains that parse_url returns the full email address in 'path'
> element. Makes reference to documents which claim it should return 'user'
> and 'host' element.
>
> To address this request and maintain backw
While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed #20308.
User complains that parse_url returns the full email address in 'path'
element. Makes reference to documents which claim it should return 'user'
and 'host' element.
To address this request and maintain backward compatabil
13 matches
Mail list logo
