22 Jul
2008
22 Jul
'08
2 a.m.
So now we are talking about the hypothetic Standards.IRI class again?
Yes. Since you objected to having a separate Standards.IRI I'm talking about what's required to merge that functionality into the current class. But by now I think this functionality fits well into Standards.URI since it doesn't do any implicit encoding or decoding.
Um, weren't we discussing how decoding everything except %25 and %2f was supposed to make the user happy somehow? In that case %5c would be decoded into , no?
Right, but as opposed to "/" there can never be any unencoded "" with metameaning that it can be ambiguous with.