Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63335 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2002 07:44:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63138 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2002 07:44:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:44:38 +0900 Message-ID: <863cpku8ex.wl@mail.edge.co.jp> From: Tatsuhiko Miyagawa To: Joe Schaefer Cc: Tatsuhiko Miyagawa , modperl@perl.apache.org, apreq list Subject: Re: ap_unescape_url can't escape %uXXXX In-Reply-To: References: <863cple4ut.wl@mail.edge.co.jp> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11.0 (Wonderwall) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) X-Prom-WL: Prom-WL 2.7.0 (procmail reader for Wanderlust) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 29 Nov 2002 02:17:31 -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > It seems that Apache's ap_unescape_url() can't handle %uXXXX style > > URI-escaped Unicode string, hence Apache::Request cannot neighther, > > while CGI.pm can. my WinIE 5.5 / WinIE 6.0 uses this style of URI escaping when you use javascript to submit page's content. (Well, I'm talking about MovableType's bookmarklet, if you're interested) > > seems to indicate that this isn't a recommended practice. OTOH, IIRC the > apache source claims to support utf8 extension(s) of www-urlencoded > ASCII, so if people really are using such encodings, supporting > "%uXXXX" in ap_unescape_url shouldn't hurt server performance at all. > > In any case, putting together a patch of ap_unescape_url along the lines > of CGI::Util's utf8_chr() can't hurt :-). Yep ;-) -- Tatsuhiko Miyagawa