René Dudfield wrote: > No, slash encoding and normalising are not the only issues. > As mentioned before sometimes you need the exact bytes. > > 1. buggy clients. If a client sends something that doesn't work > correctly, you can still sometimes make sense of it in the raw version > of the url. > 2. client APIs that require the server to know the exact url. > 3. buggy servers that don't do their job properly. > 4. extensibility. A url scheme changes a tiny bit, and you want to > support the change. Having the raw url allows you do to support it > on old servers. > > In all APIs it's handy to go to lower levels when the higher levels > don't work right. Especially when wsgi only handles one side of > things, and urls are can be generated by anything.
and Graham Dumpleton replied: > This is where it all comes down to me not have the real world > experience in writing web applications to know best. > > What I would like to hear is PJE (who tends towards #3) and Robert > Brewer (who tends towards #4). Can you guys give counter explanations > as to why there arguments for bytes isn't valid. Ian, I don't think > you have yet expressed your leaning, but would like to here your point > as well. No; in fact, I agree that REQUEST_URI should be mandated as bytes. IIRC, I'm the one who proposed it ;) Robert Brewer fuman...@aminus.org _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
