On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Michael Koziarski <[email protected]> wrote: >> After some digging, I can say it was done delibritely: >> http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/856d2fd874d72dd9f83204affff4edfef3308361 >> >> Prehaps josh can enlighten us as to the reason why the change was >> made, since the commit message does not do so. > > Nor does the message here: > http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/4dee277a9bc05083de6c831cf9aae0846849ecda > > Those commits don't really have any justification, so unless josh > pipes up I'd be tempted to reverse them. > > However to play devil's advocate, the spec isn't exactly clear that > they *should* be escaped, and nothing seems to break with them *not* > being escaped. What makes you want them that way?
As RFC 3986 is more recent and implies they should be escaped, and rack and cgi both escape them, that seems like the more logical choice. The current code specifically reverses the escaping done by cgi, so it's actually doing more work. I can't see a benefit for escaping the URI with rack and then unescaping just the brackets with a gsub, other than the unescaped URI looks nicer. If a nicer look is more important, why unescape just the brackets, why not unescape other characters where it wouldn't break things? > Is it breaking your app some how? It breaks some test code, that's all. Test code that works on 5 other web frameworks and previous versions of Rails. It's not a big deal either way, but I wanted to know rails-core opinion before I decide whether to update my test code. Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
