* Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:11:35 +0200 > > André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Author: niq > > > Date: Sat Sep 8 05:46:10 2007 > > > New Revision: 573831 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=573831&view=rev > > > Log: > > > Add option to escape backreferences in RewriteRule. > > > PR 34602 and PR 39746 > > > Patch by Guenther Gsenger > > > > > > Modified: > > > httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES > > > httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_rewrite.xml > > > httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_rewrite.c > > > > This spreads another uri escaper copy around. Why can't we take > > ap_escape_uri? Without deep digging: what's the difference? > > As I said in my reply to Rüdiger, I just applied the patch from > bugzilla, having ascertained that it looked sound and worked for > cases identified in both the bug reports referenced. Yep, sorry. Saw that reply too late. Just took a look at the diff and was disturbed by the cluttering ;) Also I don't like the ' ' => '+' transition, which should not be applied for paths. It's safer to translate that always to %20, I guess. > A further improvement, round tuits permitting, would indeed be > to look deeper, and eliminate any duplication. It should be done before considering backport, IMHO. By the way, I'm wondering why nobody picked up the suggested use of the escape rewrite map (or I overread it). (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34602#c16) nd
