-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PEP 3333: URL-decoding and routing #3280
Comments
hugovk
changed the title
PEP-3333, URL-decoding and routing
PEP 3333: URL-decoding and routing
Aug 16, 2023
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This issue was discussed in detail in 2008 [Web-SIG] WSGI Amendments thoughts: the horror of charsets It's a complex situation, I think that there is no straightforward answer. I think it likely that the only way that the WSGI spec will change in relation to this issue is if there is a specific change proposed. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
There have been several discussions over the years about how WSGI frameworks apply routing in the case of URL-encoded path components. Here's a comment that links to a few of the discussions:
encode/starlette#1828 (comment)
The issue is that when using routing features, the URL
/user/foo/edit
appears to be indistinguishable from/user/foo%2Fedit
, and in case of routing rules for/user/{username}
and/user/{username}/edit
, the URL/user/foo%2Fedit
will match the second rule and not the first.This seems to me to be in conflict with RFC 3986 section 2.4 and RFC 3986 section 2.2. The latter states:
But the routing mechanism in popular WSGI frameworks such as Flask and FastAPI are unable to differentiate the mentioned URLs, because the URI's percent-encoding is decoded before the routing happens.
I believe PEP-3333 needs to clarify the correct behaviour.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: