On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:44:53AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Dan Fandrich via curl-library wrote:
> >I think there should be a new option for this kind of encoding so the
> >canonical form stays canonical for every URI scheme, but programs that
> >would prefer merely a fairly consistent human-readable form using an
> >encoding set optimized for the scheme in use could use the other
> >CURLU_URLENCODE_OPTIMIZED (or whatever it's called) option instead.
>
> I'm not sure I see the difference between these two approaches. Can you show
> them with some example URLs?

For example, + and ! are reserved characters in RFC 3986 but unreserved in RFC
2326 (RTSP), so a generic canonicalization might return
rtsp://example.com/me%2byou%21 whereas an RTSP-specific canonicalization would
return rtsp://example.com/me+you! At least, that's my interpretation after a
quick reading of the RFCs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2018-08-13