On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> Fred Drake schrieb: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 10, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Works for me. The other thing I always use from cgi is escape() -- >>>>>>>> will that be available somewhere else too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> xml.sax.saxutils.escape() would be an appropriate replacement, > though the >>>>>>> location is a little funky. >>>>> >>>>> More than a little IMO. :-( >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, if that function is better than who cares about the location; it >>>> will end up in urllib.parse as some function. >>> >>> It's a trivial function; it shouldn't pull in three packages and lots >>> of other cruft. >> >> So are you saying that it isn't that much better in urllib.parse? That >> only cuts the package count down by one. > > I didn't mean to say, but it does seem the wrong module -- escape() is > for HTML, not for URLs.
OK. I will only worry about moving cgi.parse_qs() to urllib.parse and cgi.escape() to the html package somewhere (either 'html', 'html.parser' which is currently HTMLParser, or some new module; I prefer the first option). -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
