Adam Goldschmidt added the comment:
> The difference is that semicolon is defined in a previous specification.
I understand, but this will limit us in the future if the spec changes - though
I don't have strong feelings regarding this one.
> Dear all, now that Adam has signed the CLA,
Adam Goldschmidt added the comment:
> That doesn’t feel necessary to me. I suspect most links use &, some use ;,
> nothing else is valid at the moment and I don’t expect a new separator to
> suddenly appear. IMO the boolean parameter to also recognize ; was better.
That
Adam Goldschmidt added the comment:
> I _didn't_ change the default - it will allow both '&' and ';' still. Eric
> showed a link above that still uses semicolon. So I feel that it's strange to
> break backwards compatibility in a patch update. Maybe we can make just '&
Adam Goldschmidt added the comment:
I haven't noticed, I'm sorry. I don't mind closing mine, just thought it could
be a nice first contribution. Our PRs are different though - I feel like if we
are to implement this, we should let the developer choose the separator and not
limit to just
Change by Adam Goldschmidt :
--
pull_requests: +23120
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/24297
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42
New submission from Adam Goldschmidt :
The urlparse module treats semicolon as a separator
(https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Lib/urllib/parse.py#L739) -
whereas most proxies today only take ampersands as separators. Link to a blog
post explaining this vulnerability:
https
