Greetings Gilles, I put your "double encoding" suggestion into FAQ 4.20. In writing the entry, I became convinced that it is the only logical value for the CGI argument -- the argument is a URL which contains '%20', not ' ', and so to pass the argument we need to encode '%20', not encode ' '. (I'll try to read your mails twice as carefully in future :)
That means we don't need to find a way to implement the 'feature' I was trying to put in, with or without pitfalls. Do others agree? Lachlan On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:31, Gilles Detillieux wrote: > Have you tried an extra level of encoding, i.e. encoding %20 as > %2520? In that way, the %25 in the CGI input parameter should > decode as %, so you should be left with %20 in the "restrict" URL > pattern. > > My recommendation is that we back out this feature until someone > can properly assess all the repercussions of it, and find a way of > implementing it that avoids all the pitfalls. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ht://Dig developer DownUnder (http://www.htdig.org) ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id56&alloc_id438&op=click _______________________________________________ ht://Dig Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
