I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
___
support-seamonkey mailing
Security Issue? why? the characters are put in a form of hexadecimal
representation preceded by a percentage symbol, is not mystery or it
doesn't do anything than that; is just represented on another way for
some reason, maybe hiding the URI/L or some new standard, but is not
security-related
On 2/21/12 4:20 PM, gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
Browsers do recognize
gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
Did you bother reading the RFC 3986 at
On 2/21/12 5:28 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/21/12 4:20 PM, gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper
Interviewed by CNN on 21/02/2012 22:24, gjikkl told the world:
Security Issue? why? the characters are put in a form of hexadecimal
representation preceded by a percentage symbol, is not mystery or it
doesn't do anything than that; is just represented on another way for
some reason, maybe
Interviewed by CNN on 19/02/2012 17:07, Rufus told the world:
...as an aside, why does SM often change the ' and some other characters
contained in the website name information in a Bookmark to what appear
to be Unicode characters? Most annoying.
I don't remember noticing this behavior.
David E. Ross wrote:
I previously referred to RFC 3986. Please read it.
Note that is a special character in HTML. Since RFC 3986 specifies
its use as the separation character before a query in a URI, HTML
provides foramp; in place of in a URI. Browsers translateamp;
into when ever it is
On 2/21/12 10:10 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
I previously referred to RFC 3986. Please read it.
Note that is a special character in HTML. Since RFC 3986 specifies
its use as the separation character before a query in a URI, HTML
provides foramp; in place of in a
Interviewed by CNN on 19/02/2012 14:52, gjikkl told the world:
I'd like SeaMonkey be able to read
http%3A%2F%2Fi283.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk284%2Fdismadrosa13%2Fline.gif
as http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk284/dismadrosa13/line.gif
I didn't study the subject, but:
1. I expect that
MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 19/02/2012 14:52, gjikkl told the world:
I'd like SeaMonkey be able to read
http%3A%2F%2Fi283.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk284%2Fdismadrosa13%2Fline.gif
as http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk284/dismadrosa13/line.gif
I didn't study the subject, but:
1.
On 2/19/12 8:52 AM, gjikkl wrote:
I'd like SeaMonkey be able to read
http%3A%2F%2Fi283.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk284%2Fdismadrosa13%2Fline.gif
as http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk284/dismadrosa13/line.gif
Thanks.
That URI also does not work with Internet Explorer. Both work when
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/19/12 8:52 AM, gjikkl wrote:
I'd like SeaMonkey be able to read
http%3A%2F%2Fi283.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk284%2Fdismadrosa13%2Fline.gif
as http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk284/dismadrosa13/line.gif
Thanks.
That URI also does not work with Internet
13 matches
Mail list logo
