https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
--- Comment #4 from Remy Maucherat ---
Ok ! :(
In that other spec, the query string is indeed different from the path, but the
path itself may be a bit different from our validation as well.
For path:
The C0 control percent-encode set are the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
No, RFC 3986 is not out of date. It appears that the browsers are working to a
different spec: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#query-state
It is the cookie debacle all over again. Sigh. At least this time there
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
--- Comment #2 from Julian Reschke ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #1)
> Reading RFC 3986, the query part of the URL is the same as the rest, I don't
> understand the answer that it is different. I guess the assertion that the
> qu
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62273
Julian Reschke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||julian.resc...@gmx.de
--
You are rec
