Re: Transparent SessionIDs
| From: | Jonathan Sharp | Date: | Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:00:11 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Transparent SessionIDs | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-120447@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
I believe taht & is correct. As far as the PHPSESSIONID showing up, if php isn't able to set a cookie, then it passes it in the urls.
-js
Owen Prime wrote:
Has anyone come across this before? Have been using transparent session ids for donkeys but when recently running a page through the W3C validator I noticed something. The source of the page had a line like: <a href="content.php?id=5&PHPSESSIONID=16738gd8172d8787c8s7df">label</a> My code was obviously just <a href="content.php?id=5">label</a> and PHP added the rest. My question is this: To keep doc type compliant, should the "&" that PHP adds for the transparent session id be htmlentitised to be "&" producing the line: <a href="content.php?id=5&PHPSESSIONID=16738gd8172d8787c8s7df">label</a> Does PHP strive for a particular doc type? The function nl2br() has been XHTML compliant since 4.0.5. I was going to post it as a bug, but would like a second opinion first. Cheers, Owen Prime http://www.noggin.com.au