Isaac Morland added the comment: This is probably overkill, but I've created a Python script (attached) that runs all the tests given in Section 5.4 of RFC 3986. It reports the following:
baseurl=http://a/b/c/d;p?q failed for ?y: got http://a/b/c/?y, expected http://a/b/c/d;p?y failed for ../../../g: got http://a/../g, expected http://a/g failed for ../../../../g: got http://a/../../g, expected http://a/g failed for /./g: got http://a/./g, expected http://a/g failed for /../g: got http://a/../g, expected http://a/g failed for http:g: got http://a/b/c/g, expected http:g The last of these is sanctioned by the RFC as acceptable for backward compatibility, so I'll ignore that. The remainder suggest that in addition to the query-relative bug, there is a problem with not reducing "/./" to just "/", and with dropping excess occurrences of ".." that would go above the root. On the other hand, these additional issues are listed in the RFC as "abnormal" so I'm not sure if people are going to want to put in the time to address them. ---------- nosy: +ijmorlan Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file8651/testurlparse.py _____________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1462525> _____________________________________
testurlparse.py
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
