- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:52:58 -0400
- To: eps@sirius.com
- Cc: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
- Cc: www-lib@w3.org
In message <9508140926.AA12867@venus.sirius.com>, "Eric P. Scott" writes: >draft-ietf-html-spec-05.txt (August 8, 1995) section 8.2.1 says: > > 1. The form field names and values are escaped: space > characters are replaced by `+', and then reserved characters > are escaped as per [URL]; that is, non-alphanumeric > >[My copy of RFC 1738 is dated December 1994!] Good catch. >I'm confused about the meaning of "reserved" in this context, or >on exactly how much of [URL] is being incorporated by reference >here--is it just the %HH encoding? Yes. > I think the desired behavior >is to encode space characters as `+' yes. > and `+' characters as %2B no. Why? >(note that [URL] considers `+' "safe!"). Exactly. + shouldn't be encoded, I believe. > Looking at the just- >released-to-the-public W3C WWWLibrary, HTEscape.c appears to let >"-._" pass unencoded, but not the "safe" `$'; the "extra" `*' is >O.K., yet none of its peers are. This is a defect in WWWLibrary. I believe henrik already knows about this. I'll copy www-lib@w3.org on this just in case. >I think we're all in agreement that alphanumerics don't need to >be encoded. Nowhere else in draft-ietf-html-spec-05.txt is >there any mention of what constitute "reserved characters," but >it seems that [URL]'s definition isn't applicable, Why not? I believe [URL]'s definition is applicable. Hmmm... it may be updated by [RELURL]. Roy? > yet the >reference implementation doesn't limit itself to strict >alphanumerics either. As I said, this is a bug. I'm pretty sure it's a known bug. Dan
Received on Thursday, 17 August 1995 14:53:25 UTC