Author martin.panter
Recipients martin.panter, nsonaniya2010, orsenthil
Date 2019-01-16.10:01:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1547632897.49.0.33726596936.issue35748@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
FWIW I understand the backslash should be percent-encoded in URLs, otherwise the URL is not valid.

This reminds me of a few other bugs:

* Issue 30500: Made the behaviour of fragment (#. . .) versus userinfo (. . .@) consistent, e.g. in //www.google.com#@xxx.com
* Issue 18140: Also about the ambiguity of fragment (#. . .) and query (?. . .) versus userinfo (. . .@)
* Issue 23328: Precedence of path segment (/. . .) versus userinfo (. . .@); e.g. //user/name:pass/word@www.google.com

I think people some times come up with these invalid URLs because they are trying to make a URL that includes a password with unusual characters (e.g. for the “http_proxy” environment variable). So raising an exception or otherwise changing the parsing behaviour could break those cases.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-16 10:01:39martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, orsenthil, nsonaniya2010
2019-01-16 10:01:37martin.pantersetmessageid: <1547632897.49.0.33726596936.issue35748@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-01-16 10:01:37martin.panterlinkissue35748 messages
2019-01-16 10:01:37martin.pantercreate