Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-30 Thread Russ Allbery
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But anyway: whould this imply that URL- and simple HTML escaping and > back, will now be available through pack()/unpack()? Just like UUE? > ;-) Adding base64 encoding/decoding and quoted-printable would also be useful. Either that, or taking uuenc

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-30 Thread Bart Lateur
On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: >Perl6 make it *easier* to write CGI programs than Perl5. That is a strange sentence. But anyway: whould this imply that URL- and simple HTML escaping and back, will now be available through pack()/unpack()? Just like UUE? ;-) -

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-29 Thread Robert Mathews
Alan Gutierrez wrote: > HTML::Embperl stuffs form input into a hash just as proposed here. For > multiple values it creates a tab-delimited string. This will not present > the above trouble with commas, since when the user, for some odd reason, > enters "Ann Arbor\tMI", in most browsers the input

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-29 Thread Philip Newton
On 28 Sep 2000, at 21:36, iain truskett wrote: > * Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Sep 2000 21:19]: > > On 27 Sep 2000, at 23:48, iain truskett wrote: > > > > So surely you'd want %HTTP (the input headers) to also be an array > > > rather than a hash, since they'd be required in order as w

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread Nathan Wiger
Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > This header functionality is application specific and does not belong in > the core any more than the socket stuff which seems to be on its way > out. I don't see why this has be implemented in the core in C. > > Once again, if core means core modules, and as a part of

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread Adam Turoff
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:06:42AM +0200, H . Merijn Brand wrote: > On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This and other RFCs are available on the web at > > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ > > > > =head1 TITLE > > > > First-Class CGI Support > > Freezing

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread Robert Mathews
Nathan Wiger wrote: > 1. make a listref only for multiple values: >@name = @{$CGI{name}} if ( ref $CGI{name} eq 'ARRAY' ); Ick. That piece of code is small enough, but it's going to end up replicating itself everywhere %CGI is accessed. This will be a fruitful new source of bugs when people

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread Nathan Wiger
> A future protocol could well require things in order. Hence you're > having the output headers in order. Therefore you should have the input > ones available in order as well. I don't see a reason why an @HTTP ordered and %HTTP unordered couldn't both be supported. > I'm thinking a $headers_i

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread iain truskett
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Sep 2000 21:19]: > On 27 Sep 2000, at 23:48, iain truskett wrote: > > So surely you'd want %HTTP (the input headers) to also be an array > > rather than a hash, since they'd be required in order as well? > I don't care, because I don't work with this much.

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-28 Thread Philip Newton
On 27 Sep 2000, at 23:48, iain truskett wrote: > So surely you'd want %HTTP (the input headers) to also be an array > rather than a hash, since they'd be required in order as well? I don't care, because I don't work with this much. And I don't know whether I'd need to bear in mind the protocol

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread H . Merijn Brand
On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This and other RFCs are available on the web at > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ > > =head1 TITLE > > First-Class CGI Support Freezing within two days doesn't leave much space for comments and or objections does it? I'

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Nathan Wiger
Robert Mathews wrote: > > > Parse the CGI GET/POST request, returning CGI variables into %CGI > > (regardless of the source) in an un-HTTP escaped fashion > > How are you going to handle multiple values for the same parameter? > With CGI.pm, you can say > @values = $q->param("foo"); > > Are y

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 07:53 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > > >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the > > >calculation was in a 'no taint' block. > > > > Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed > > through a "no tai

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Nathan Wiger
Dan Sugalski wrote: > > >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the > >calculation was in a 'no taint' block. > > Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed > through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting >

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 07:09 PM 9/27/00 -0400, James Mastros wrote: >From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM > > 'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the > > rules for that should stay in effect. What

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Adam Turoff
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note > about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it separately? Adding headers() to the core language (or a similar pragma that is automagically invo

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Nathan Wiger
Philip Newton wrote: > > > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS > > instead that does such auto-formatting? > > In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and > if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys and in >

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Adam Turoff
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote: > Really, I don't see why we can't > just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma. Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before pragmas are compiled. Z.

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread James Mastros
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:36:42AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > Tainting should be able to be turned off, as Tom recommends, > but only if the user turns on the "absolutely, positively, > do NOT turn on taint mode" switch. I can see it now -- C. Really, I don't see why we can't just have a

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Philip Newton
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote: > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS > instead that does such auto-formatting? In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys

Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread iain truskett
* Perl6 RFC Librarian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 18:36]: [] [...] > When this pragma is loaded, it should replace the print coderef with a > function that will print out all headers in the @HEADERS queue, print > out the desired output, and restore the print coderef. It should also ens

RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

2000-09-27 Thread Perl6 RFC Librarian
This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE First-Class CGI Support =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 24 Sep 2000 Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 288 Version: 2 Status: F