Proposal (Was: When are and aren't two URLs the same?)

[Samar Sodhi]

STO SENDING ME THIS SPAM.TAKE ME OUT OF UR GROUP,WILL MUCH APPRECIATE UR
COOPERATION!

On 4/22/06, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/4/21, Johannes Ernst <jernst+lists.danga.com at netmesh.us>:
> > Well, speaking just about our code at NetMesh, we currently would
> > have two entries in our Yadis cache for URLs
> >      http://foo.com/a%20b
> > and
> >      http://foo.com/a+b
> > and chances are that if you brought those two URLs to the same
> > Relying Party based on our code, they would create separate
> > "accounts" in the database. I consider that a bug ... because there
> > is no practical way that
> >      http://foo.com/a%20b
> > and
> >      http://foo.com/a+b
> > could produce different web pages when entered into a browser.
>
> I consider that a bug, because "+" is not equivalent to a space per
> RFC3986 [1].
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're only equivalent in the query part
> of a URI when following application/x-www-form-urlencoded [2] style,
> such as HTML forms using GET method, never in the path part of the
> URI, where a "+" is always left as-is [*] or encoded as "%2B".
>
> [*] because the "+" sign has no delimiting role in the "http" or
> "https" schemes ; per RFC3986, section 2.2, §4 (which says that "If a
> reserved character is found in a URI component and no delimiting role
> is known for that character, then it must be interpreted as
> representing the data octet corresponding to that character's encoding
> in US-ASCII.") and RFC2616 (which assigns no delimiting role to "+")
>
> [1] http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.13.4.1
>
> --
> Thomas Broyer
>



--
Samar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/yadis/attachments/20060423/eeb64e4d/attachment.htm