tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <wbar...@wilshire.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Bug 22666
Date Sun, 07 Sep 2003 03:33:45 GMT
I'd go for 2) personally.  If you force the POST parameters to UTF-8 (which
I understand is what '3' does), you break almost every web-app out there.
Granted, the request line (including the query-string) should be UTF-8, but
I haven't tested how many browsers actually enforce this.  The POST
parameters will generally be in the encoding of the referrer (which usually
isn't UTF-8).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Thomas" <medthomas@ntlworld.com>
To: "'Tomcat Developers List'" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Bug 22666


> This is obviously a bigger mess than I first thought. As I see it, the
> following options exist for resolving bug 22666.
>
> 1. WONTFIX - On the basis that there is too much uncertainty to do
anything
> sensible and that any changes made might break interoperability as per
Remy's
> point 3 below.
>
> 2. FIX - Patch the parameter class (as per Remy's point 2 below) on the
grounds
> that the JSP spec states "The World Wide Web Consortium
(http://www.w3.org/) is
> a definitive source of HTTP related information affecting this
specification
> and its implementations." and the w3c view
> (http://www.w3.org/International/O-URL-code.html) is that URI encoding
should
> always be based on UTF-8. However, this is still likely to break things
(back
> to Remy's point 3).
>
> 3. FIX - Add a configuration option that enables w3c compliant URI
decoding and
> patch the parameter and any other relevant classes to support this option.
I am
> not 100% sure where the best place to do this would be. I am leaning
towards
> adding it to the context as an optional parameter with a default state of
> disabled.
>
> There are several bugs in bugzilla that look as if they are on similar
lines
> and on that basis my own view is that option 3 is way to go. Before I
start
> coding, I would be grateful for some feedback/guidance on my planned
approach.
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Friday, September 05, 2003 8:13 PM, Remy Maucherat
[SMTP:remm@apache.org]
> wrote:
> > Mark Thomas wrote:
> > > I was working from
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/International/O-URL-code.html
> > >
> > > Applying the patch fixed the problem as reported in bug 22666. I am
happy
> to
> > >
> > > have another look at this. Can you point me in the direction of a
better
> > > reference?
> >
> > Well, -1 because:
> > 1) Everyone ignores this standard
> > 2) Your encoding will apply to *all* parameters, not just URL
> > parameters; you have to patch the Parameters class for your patch to be
> > correct (I would still vote -1, but at least it wouldn't break the
> > specification)
> > 3) It is extremely likely that people expect all parameters to have the
> > same encoding, regardless of what that w3c spec says; if the servlet
> > spec writes in big bold somewhere that the URL is always UTF8 (which
> > would likely break interoperability with a lot of HTTP clients -
> > possibly all), then it's different
> >
> > Remy
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message