Re: PHP 4.0 Bug #6625 Updated: htmlspecialchars shouldescape"'" character

Jon Ribbens wrote: > Sterling Hughes <sterling@php.net> wrote: > > We have a function that is "broken" in the sense that it doesn't > > support > > a feature that in an ideal world it would. The function still works as far > > as it holds true to its documentation, it performs the operations that it > > says it will. > > It performs the operations that the documentation lists, but it does not > achieve the aim that the documentation claims. <shrug> I think you *are* right that the ' should have been enitized by that functions, but it is now much too late to change it. > > > It does not break backwards compatibility, because if people have relied > on buggy behaviour that is clearly documented as being subject to change, > then it is their scripts that are broken, not PHP for changing. > People did not rely on buggy behavior? The only person who thinks that the htmlspecailchars is buggy, is you. Also the first one who reported that bug during the (about) 3 years that it is a part of the main distribution, is you. > > I realise this may seem like an unforgiving attitude towards the > script authors, but it is much less unforgiving than the existing > attitude towards, e.g., adding functions, which appears to be "we may break > any of your scripts, even those that were written entirely correctly, > at any time, without warning". > > > The drawbacks, it will break plenty of scripts that do use the function > > without this feature. > > This is the part I don't believe. I can't imagine how someone could use > the function in such a way that it would break their script if it also > encoded apostrophes. This is why I brought cmv into the conversation, > because he had previously stated that he had code that broke. He refuses > to show any, however. > It seems you don't have an imaginative mind, thus. > > > A complement to be sure! Didya' here that everyone, I'm less stupid then you > > are! :-) > > Careful, your responses are tending towards intelligent and sensible. I might > have to upgrade your assessment to 'smart' if you're not careful. Slijmbal. Regards, -- Derick Rethans