Geoffrey Young wrote:
Beg your pardon? Have you looked at the HTML source code? it goes:
<a
href="http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar&reg=foobar";>http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar&reg=foobar</a>
I think what carl was saying was that the source of the bug in the
discussion was incorrect, not in how we render the page ourselves.
in the discussion it talks about a url in the form
http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar
carl was saying that if you put a literal
'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar' in your html _that_ is the
cause of the problem - unescaped ampersands in url links are not allowed, so
the literal url in user html should be
'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar&reg=foobar'.
so, in _our_ own html we get it right :) but the source of the problem for
the user is that they don't get it right. or, more properly, we are
misrepresenting what the actual userspace problem really is - the workaround
might work, but the underlying problem is that they don't properly escape
their ampersands in their own url links.
at least that's what I think carl was trying to say :)
Oh, I see, I thought you were talking a bug in the docs building system.
But if you write:
'http://example.com/foo.pl?foo=bar&reg=foobar'.
There is no problem whatsover. Since there is no ® here.
Since when unescaped & in the QUERY_STRING part of the URL are not allowed?
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
