From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:52:45 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <18573e78207d9e808a283b21055026c5@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: <9ab217670903270552o64036bc6l822ca1f6e73ec82f@mail.gmail.com> References: <3587eb7837ae411c3c512564d9997e1c@smgl.fr.eu.org> <5ab04e072064bfe53f47b5a785bc41ec@quanstro.net> <9ab217670903270552o64036bc6l822ca1f6e73ec82f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] another webfs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: cb245358-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Yeah, there aren't any. That's the point of URL encoding; NULL bytes > are as acceptable as any other, and your client should be able to > handle them -- so I think that webfs check is just bogus. It should > just encode it as a \0 and pass it through. (you do mean %00 should result in a byte with value 0, not two bytes (in c notation) '\\' and '0', right?) assuming that every application that uses webfs is prepared to handle a null byte in the middle of a string. what webfs does — complaining loudly — is much preferrable to programs misbehaving silently. since it's quite likely that plan 9 applications are not going to properly deal with a null in a string, it's probablly a good implementation strategy unless you're willing to test all the programs that use webfs to make sure that this case is properly handled. - erik