On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 09:56 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> On 07/30/10 09:36, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:04 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> >>> I also don't like the %2f encoding, not so much for this particular
> >>> case, but because it sets a bad precedent, and the standard unix text
> >>> filtering commands don't have any support for that sort of escaping
> >>> (i.e. it's not really what you'd expect on unix).
> >>
> >> The precedent comes both obviously from URI syntax standards/RFC's, and
> >> in the Solaris context, from pkg(5). ls /var/pkg/pkg on your system
> >> to see lots of existing files with %2F names.
> >
> > Precedent set, and while it results in ugly looking names, it will work
> > unambiguously. Lets move on now... (sorry I raised it in the first
> > place).
> >
> > (Oh, can you please elaborate whether any other % encodings are used?
> > At a minimum it sees that % itself must be encoded...)
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=url+encoding+rfc&l=1
Gee, thanks. The question wasn't on the spec for URL encoding... the
question was whether the *implementation* handles the full spec or just
%2f. I don't recall the case indicating that full URL encoding was in
use.
- Garrett
>
> - Bart
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
