From: Julien Blanc (julien.blanc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-10-13 05:56:15
Le mercredi 13 octobre 2021 Ã 11:27 +1300, Gavin Lambert via Boost a
écrit :
> On 13/10/2021 10:15, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> > Okay, I think what you're saying is that you will have this string
> > literal:
> >
> > Â Â Â Â string_view s = "http://example.com/\xf0\x9f\x92\xa9";
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is not a valid URL and I don't think that the
> > library should accept this input. However, you could write this:
> >
> > Â Â Â Â url u = parse_uri( "http://example.com" ).value();
> >
> > Â Â Â Â u.set_path( "/\xf0\x9f\x92\xa9" );
>
> Why would set_path accept encoding that parse_uri does not? That
> sounds like a red flag.
I would not say so. IÂ see 2 different use cases :
* parse an uri : the uri must be properly encoded
* programatically build an uri: the different components shall not be
encoded.
-> u.set_path("%f0%9f%92%a9") will then produce
"http://example.com/%25f0%259f%2592%25a9".
However, that seems inconsistent with the way set_host works (the docs
says it needs to be encoded), so i tend to agree with the red flag here
(or maybe they're just documentation issues, since there is also
set_encoded_host). And then there's the issue of the '/' character in
set_path if you take unencoded strings (not sure how this should be
handled...)
Regards,
Julien