> Yeah, but I figure in most cases the name part will be known for a
> script so it wouldn't have to be dynamicly encoded.
>
> Or are you saying that you would rather have the name part URL-
> encoded by that option as well?
>
> I figure we could also make variations of the syntax to allow for
> both approaches, but I think that feels like way more work than
> this deserves... :-)
>
it sounds great as is, im just giving feedback that at one point i
had name parts that also required url encode.
Received on 2007-11-19