GeezerVison

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Fred Drake schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 10, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Works for me. The other thing I always use from cgi is escape() --
>>>>>>>> will that be available somewhere else too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> xml.sax.saxutils.escape() would be an appropriate replacement,
> though  the
>>>>>>> location is a little funky.
>>>>>
>>>>> More than a little IMO. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if that function is better than who cares about the location; it
>>>> will end up in urllib.parse as some function.
>>>
>>> It's a trivial function; it shouldn't pull in three packages and lots
>>> of other cruft.
>>
>> So are you saying that it isn't that much better in urllib.parse? That
>> only cuts the package count down by one.
>
> I didn't mean to say, but it does seem the wrong module -- escape() is
> for HTML, not for URLs.

OK. I will only worry about moving cgi.parse_qs() to urllib.parse and
cgi.escape() to the html package somewhere (either 'html',
'html.parser' which is currently HTMLParser, or some new module; I
prefer the first option).

-Brett