On 2/19/07, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn-DiZw3cqpylQkmLvzuZlaBw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>>>> "Mihai" == Mihai Bazon <mihai-v82Rofks0GpeoWH0uzbU5w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
>> If we want a uri escape that is that aggressive, can it be put under a
>> different name, and the existing uri be modded back to allow : and /
>> characters through untouched...
Mihai> $votes++
You clearly don't understand the problem then, or what uri-escaping is about.
This isn't about "voting". This is about *doing the right thing*.
You *cannot* uri-escape a string that already has a path to it.
You can only uri-escape the path steps.
Doing the right thing would have been not breaking compatibility with
existing practice, particularly that published on dead trees as
mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Reverting the uri filter back to
the old behavior, creating a new filter with a slightly different
name, and deprecating the old filter in favor of the new one, would be
the right thing.
Or perhaps have the filter generate a warning message if it detects
http:// in the string?
| 
