W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2005

RE: [Bug 1502] [F&O] escape-uri encompasses & s/b split into 2 distinct functions

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:49:06 -0700
To: bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050616144906313.00000000660@amalhotr-pc>

This is a cleaner design, easier to explain and easier to understand.
I suggest we add some of the motivation in the function descriptions.
I vote for 3 functions and I don't understand Michael Rys' objection.

Ashok Malhotra - Personal Response
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:26 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [Bug 1502] [F&O] escape-uri encompasses & s/b split 
> into 2 distinct functions
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1502
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From mike@saxonica.com  
> 2005-06-16 18:25 ------- I'm inclined to agree. Experience of 
> using this function suggests it's very hard to remember which 
> way to set the boolean argument, and the resulting code is 
> not clear to the reader. I think we were over-influenced by 
> pressure to minimize the number of functions.
> 
> Perhaps suitable names might be escape-uri() and escape-uri-part().
> 
> I haven't seen use cases for an unescape-uri() function, but 
> I agree there's an argument for it based on completeness. 
> 
> Michael Kay (personal response)
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:38 GMT