Re: URI.pm bug or am i missing something?

I just had a look through the RFC's and it doesnt seem clear how this should be handled, however it does seem clear that it should be properly handled as in at least one example in RFC 1866 where there are two values for the same key. And I think its also clear that the URI code is buggy. From what I understand it should handle ";" as well as "&". I would say follow up. Id be interested to hear what is said.

---
demerphq

_{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}

Comment on Re: URI.pm bug or am i missing something? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: URI.pm bug or am i missing something? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 20, 2003 at 10:07 UTC
I don't think the RFC needs to specify how it should be handled. It never says unique keys, so you can't assume key uniqueness. As for the other thing, it's been reported already ( 27 Query separator is hard-coded to be '&' on Thu Nov 8 22:04:14 2001 ).	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: URI.pm bug or am i missing something? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Apr 20, 2003 at 10:21 UTC
It never says unique keys, so you can't assume key uniqueness. Agreed, and my point goes further in that given that the spec doesnt specify how this should be handled, yet does contain an example that contains duplicate keys it seems reasonable to conclude that the spec meant to allow duplicate keys. --- demerphq _{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}	[reply] [d/l]
•Re: Re: Re: Re: URI.pm bug or am i missing something? by merlyn (Sage) on Apr 20, 2003 at 16:11 UTC
It has to permit duplicate keys, because the specification for a "select multiple" form element sends back the same form name with every selected value. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]