https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45406
--- Comment #8 from Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-07-16 08:12:02 PST --- I do(In reply to comment #6) > If we are to accept UTC-16, let's examine the bytestream of a GET request; > > GET > \0h\0t\0t\0p\0:\0/\0/\0a\0.\0c\0o\0m\0?\0u\0t\0f\0001\0006\0p\0a\0r\0a\0m\0e\0t\0e\0r\0=\0\0%\0D\00007\0%\0000\0005 > HTTP/1.1 > > *That* is utc-16 encoding. > ... Yes. That's not allowed. I didn't say that. However, from RFC2616's point of view it's totally legal to encode non-ASCII characters in the URL any way you want. There simply is no requirement that it needs to be a superset of ASCII. Of course, whether or not that is a good idea is another question. So yes, if a server needs to support these kinds of URIs, it needs to workaround the limitations of the servlet engine (another way would be to use getRequestURI(), and parse that directly). -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
