Luís Bruno wrote: > Ian Bicking wrote: > > But relating REQUEST_URI with SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO is awkward and > > having the information in duplicate places can lead to errors and > > unclear situations if they don't match up properly. > > True, and you can apply the same reasoning to my suggestion too. > > Apart from the duplication of information, there's how or where to > do the actual decoding. Not everyone is dispatching to a > CherryPy-style tree of objects, so putting a %-decoded list of path > segments in a environ key doesn't work -- I knew it was a bad idea! > I'm going with CherryPy's on this: don't decode "%2F". Should other > characters be kept encoded?
Yes, in my opinion all encoded character should remain encoded. Otherwise, a path like /whatever/some%252Fthing/blah/ would become (after decoding): /whatever/some%2Fthing/blah/ which is certainly not what you'd want and/or expect. > Also, this crystallizes my thoughts on the matter: %-decoding is the > applications' job. Or frameworks'. *Not* the servers'. I absolutely agree on this. The application is the only entity that knows how to interpret the (remainder of the) URI properly. > -- > Luís Bruno -- het internet begint bij ilse tel: 040 219 32 00 Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse fax: 040 219 32 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] url: http://ilse.nl/ _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
