A critique of cgi.escape

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <efate6$ilf$1 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <efaknl$867$2 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> 
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> In message <4517e10e$0$13929$edfadb0f at dread15.news.tele.dk>, Max M
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lawrence is right that the escape method doesn't work the way he
>>>>> expects it to.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rewriting a library module simply because a developer is surprised is
>>>>> a *very* bad idea.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Verging on disgust at some
>>>> comments in this thread, yes. But "surprised" is what a lot of users of
>>>> the existing cgi.escape function are going to be when they discover
>>>> their code isn't doing what they thought it was.
>>> 
>>> Why should they be surprised? The documentation states clearly what
>>> cgi.escape() does (as does the docstring).
>> 
>> Documentation frequently states stupid things. Doesn't mean it should be
>> treated as sacrosanct.
> 
> That's not the point. The point is that someone using cgi.escape() will
> hardly be surprised of what it does and doesn't do.

And this surprise, or lack of it, is relevant to the argument how, exactly?