2009/3/27 erik quanstrom <quans...@coraid.com>: >> Yeah, there aren't any. That's the point of URL encoding; NULL bytes >> are as acceptable as any other, and your client should be able to >> handle them -- so I think that webfs check is just bogus. It should >> just encode it as a \0 and pass it through. > > (you do mean %00 should result in a byte with value 0, not > two bytes (in c notation) '\\' and '0', right?)
Yes, I meant '\0'. > assuming that every application that uses webfs is prepared > to handle a null byte in the middle of a string. what webfs does > — complaining loudly — is much preferrable to programs misbehaving > silently. since it's quite likely that plan 9 applications are not > going to properly deal with a null in a string, it's probablly > a good implementation strategy unless you're willing to test > all the programs that use webfs to make sure that this case > is properly handled. Ok, but then valid applications such as this one can't use webfs. I think something needing this could solve the issue by having the application import webfs into its own namespace, and then sending some sort of ctl command telling it to set an option to allow null bytes. --dho > - erik > >
