Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63096 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 8514 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2012 18:21:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Sep 2012 18:21:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.133 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.133 smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.133] ([67.192.241.133:40723] helo=smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 22/DB-07072-9ABB8505 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:21:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp13.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3D7C33D081C; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:21:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp13.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id D115C3D01F5; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5058BBA6.4090702@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:21:26 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Clay CC: PHP Internals References: <5058A697.30903@sugarcrm.com> <5058A8B8.3070404@sugarcrm.com> <5058A97A.4080900@ajf.me> <5058AABA.1040406@sugarcrm.com> <5058B5A5.6090302@sugarcrm.com> <5058BA43.8010806@mrclay.org> In-Reply-To: <5058BA43.8010806@mrclay.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Implementing a core anti-XSS escaping class From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Filter has already gone down this road--I doubt the value added by having a second, much > more verbose way to call htmlspecialchars()--but I don't see why we must continue down > that path. So, you don't think there should be second, more verbose way to call htmlspecialchars - that's why we should add third, more verbose way to call htmlspecialchars? Somehow this does not sound convincing to me. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227