[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Module name mangling
From: |
Martin Grabmueller |
Subject: |
Re: Module name mangling |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:27:03 +0100 (MET) |
> From: Marius Vollmer <address@hidden>
> Date: 30 Jan 2001 15:49:57 +0100
>
> Martin Grabmueller <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > The RFC for URL-encoding specifies so-called `safe' characters, which
> > do not need encoding. These are alphanumeric characters an a few
> > others, like `-', `_' etc. Unfortunaly I don't have the RFC number
> > handy, but I will try to figure that out while at university today.
> > Then I'll post the result of my search.
> >
> > When we have a list of safe characters, the only thing we need to
> > agree upon is how we encode the unsafe ones. Am I right?
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> Since the list is a list of safe characters, we don't have a list of
> the unsafe ones. This means that we can't make a mapping from these
> unsafe characters to pretty encodings. Thus, we would be back to
> hexadecimal encoding. Hmm.
I've done some `research' and want to present the results. Maybe it
will be useful for the discussion.
RFC1738 specifies how URLs have to look like, and also specifies which
characters are `unsafe' and `safe'. For the full explanation, see for
example
http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc1738.html
In short:
Safe characters are:
alphanumerics and $-_.+!*'(),
Unsafe are all others, except when reserved characters are used for
their specific purpose (e.g. / as a path separator).
So if we want to be on the safe side and stick to URL encoding, there
is only the possibility of hex-encoding the unsafe characters. That
would be my original patch with the safe characters (defined above)
added.
Summary of the possibilities (please add more if you want):
1. Strict URL encoding: not beatiful but safe for the future
2. More readable encoding: will probably have to change in the future.
Regards,
'martin
--
Martin Grabmueller address@hidden
http://www.pintus.de/mgrabmue/ address@hidden on EFnet
- Re: Module name mangling, (continued)
- Re: Module name mangling, Ian Grant, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Marius Vollmer, 2001/01/29
- Re: Module name mangling, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Marius Vollmer, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Michael Livshin, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling,
Martin Grabmueller <=
- Re: Module name mangling, Lars J. Aas, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Marius Vollmer, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Neil Jerram, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/01/30
- Re: Module name mangling, Neil Jerram, 2001/01/31
- Re: Module name mangling, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/01/30