Ah, thanks! I was already getting quite lost here, seriously doubting my own understanding of the situation :)
Looking forward to your next reply! On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 4:27:20 PM UTC+1 José Valim wrote: > Gah, I am so sorry. I have been working on the wrong assumption that > URI.encode_query was escaping space to %20 but it is encoding it to +, > which was your point all along. Yes, escaping it to + is not in > accordance to RFC3986. > > I will re-read your original e-mail and address it accordingly now. Once > again, apologies. > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:13 PM José Valim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > If I read this correctly, than given what you write, the current >> `URI.encode_query/1` implementation _is_ in violation of RFC3986. Example: >> >> You can’t compare the result of URI.encode with URI.encode_query because >> they are meant to escape different parts of an URI and different parts use >> different rules. They are both in accordance to the RFC though. >> >> The assumption that all of a URL needs to be escaped with URI.encode is >> incorrect. if we encode a query parameter with URI.encode, that will be >> the wrong result. >> >> Plus, the Wikipedia article explicitly mentions that escaping space as + >> is a difference to RFC3986, which confirms my assumption that RFC3986 does >> not mention whitespace *in query params* should be encoded as +: >> >> > The encoding of SPACE as '+' and the selection of "as-is" characters >> distinguishes this encoding from RFC 3986 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986>. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/66ac514a-72b1-42db-99df-9a4823fdb892n%40googlegroups.com.
