- 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
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 UTC