On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:44:53AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Dan Fandrich via curl-library wrote: > >I think there should be a new option for this kind of encoding so the > >canonical form stays canonical for every URI scheme, but programs that > >would prefer merely a fairly consistent human-readable form using an > >encoding set optimized for the scheme in use could use the other > >CURLU_URLENCODE_OPTIMIZED (or whatever it's called) option instead. > > I'm not sure I see the difference between these two approaches. Can you show > them with some example URLs?
For example, + and ! are reserved characters in RFC 3986 but unreserved in RFC 2326 (RTSP), so a generic canonicalization might return rtsp://example.com/me%2byou%21 whereas an RTSP-specific canonicalization would return rtsp://example.com/me+you! At least, that's my interpretation after a quick reading of the RFCs. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html