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

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 ).

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]