> > > Reviewing not quite current HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 drafts I noticed that the > > plus sign (+) character is included as a safe character. > > > > This would seem to be in conflict with current practice and the HTML > > RFC where the + is part of the url encoding scheme to represent blanks. > > It is safe, and "+" does not represent blanks. The "+" character is > used to separate keywords in a URL generated by an ISINDEX query, > but those separators are not equivalent to blanks. Since the query part > is generated, there is no need for "+" to be reserved in the URL syntax, > which is why it is not reserved in RFC 1738. As I recall, some confusion on this point was created by a mis-statement in one of the NCSA documents. -- Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.eduReceived on Friday, 9 February 1996 18:30:56 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:44 EDT