httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: votes
Date Sat, 08 Apr 1995 20:00:37 GMT
On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> 59 and 55 could be included if someone who "forgot" to vote or whose
> votes I might have missed, mails me in the next half hour.
> (Randy and Rob T votes for 55,  Randy and me for 59)

Next half hour?  Man, do some people think we get our IP feeds via 
intravenous injection or something?

55 - +1, if Cliff and Randy have tested it and it works, gets my +1.  Cliff
and I have used an early version of it on Organic for a couple months now
(patched against just 1.3 of course :)

59 - -1, I don't think the server should muck (er, translate) <, >, or & 
in #echo at all, the onus is on the content provider to get that right 
(and besides, what if I want to use HTML tags or SGML entities?)

58 - Looking at the patch up there *right*now*, it looks like it's still 
setting MAX_STRING_LEN to HUGE_STRING_LEN, except now you can set HUGE to 
be whatever you want.  This begs the question as to why there were ever 
two separate values, and what would happen if I made HUGE 256 (since 
that's all I want MAX to be).  I could be wrong because I'm only looking 
at the patch and haven't had time to apply it.



View raw message