https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/favicon.ico?17113305112014-12-29T07:48:27ZRuby Issue Tracking SystemRuby master - Bug #10669: Incorrect url parsing in 2.2.0 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10669?journal_id=506772014-12-29T07:48:27Znaruse (Yui NARUSE)naruse@airemix.jp
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Open</i> to <i>Rejected</i></li></ul><p>RFC3986 reg-name allows "()".</p> Ruby master - Bug #10669: Incorrect url parsing in 2.2.0 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10669?journal_id=506872014-12-29T23:16:21Zsam.saffron (Sam Saffron)sam.saffron@gmail.com
<ul></ul><p>I get that, but a trend is developing here that is concerning.</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/rack/rack/blob/ab172af1b63f0d8e91ce579dd2907c43b96cf82a/lib/rack/mock.rb#L82-L85" class="external">https://github.com/rack/rack/blob/ab172af1b63f0d8e91ce579dd2907c43b96cf82a/lib/rack/mock.rb#L82-L85</a></p>
<p>we have a workaround but it seems a bit odd as a default, is there a reason RFC3986 was picked as a default over RFC2396?</p> Ruby master - Bug #10669: Incorrect url parsing in 2.2.0 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10669?journal_id=507562015-01-02T07:58:49Zduerst (Martin Dürst)duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
<ul></ul><blockquote>
<p>we have a workaround but it seems a bit odd as a default, is there a reason RFC3986 was picked as a default over RFC2396?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>RFC 3986 already is turning 10 years old (published January 2005) and has been an Internet Standard for that long. It obsoletes RFC 2396, which was published August 1998. So the right question here is "what reason would there be to pick RFC 2396 over RFC 3986 as the default?".</p>