| msg175041 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-07 03:27 |
| I think it would be really helpful if urllib would support data URLs. However, I was told on the python-ideas mailing list that it would probably only added as recipe in the documentation. The attached patch adds such an recipe to the urllib.request documentation. I've never written a doc patch (or any patch) for python before, so I don't know if I added it at the right place in the right format. |
|
|
| msg175667 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-16 03:45 |
| New patch. Instead of adding the data URL support to the doc as a recipe I added it to urllib.request directly. I think this is better and justified, because the old legacy URLopener had (some kind) of support for data URLs. OT: I think that the legacy URLopener has bugs. It only unquotes the data if it's base64 encoded, but it should be unquoted in any case. Also it returns a StringIO and decodes the content as latin-1. This is wrong, the content is a binary string. It could be text encoded in any kind of charset or not text at all (e.g. an image). |
|
|
| msg175828 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *  |
Date: 2012-11-17 23:36 |
| A couple of comments: - the patch needs a test (and docs too) - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we forbid it instead? - I think it would be nice to reference the RFC number somewhere - not sure why you raise IOError on a bad URL; I would say ValueError is the right exception here +1 on the general idea, by the way. |
|
|
| msg175831 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-17 23:42 |
| On 11/18/2012 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > A couple of comments: > > - the patch needs a test (and docs too) Will do (when I have time). > - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we forbid it instead? > - I think it would be nice to reference the RFC number somewhere > - not sure why you raise IOError on a bad URL; I would say ValueError is the right exception here > I did that because that's what the old URLopener code does (ignoring POSTed data and raising an IOError). The comment is actually a 1:1 copy of the old code. > +1 on the general idea, by the way. > > ---------- > nosy: +pitrou > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue16423> > _______________________________________ > |
|
|
| msg175833 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-11-17 23:43 |
| > > - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we forbid it instead? > > - I think it would be nice to reference the RFC number somewhere > > - not sure why you raise IOError on a bad URL; I would say ValueError is the right exception here > > > > I did that because that's what the old URLopener code does (ignoring POSTed data and raising an > IOError). The comment is actually a 1:1 copy of the old code. Ok. I think it's better to take a fresh start here :-) |
|
|
| msg175840 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-18 01:31 |
| On 11/18/2012 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > - the patch needs a test (and docs too) > - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we forbid it instead? Btw.: The file:// protocol handler also just ignores posted data, so I think the data url handler shouldn't deviate from that. Either both raise an error when data is posted or none. |
|
|
| msg175842 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-18 04:16 |
| Ok, I've added a documentation and some tests. Is it ok this way? More tests? More/other documentation? |
|
|
| msg175867 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-11-18 11:38 |
| > On 11/18/2012 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > - the patch needs a test (and docs too) > > - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we forbid it instead? > > Btw.: The file:// protocol handler also just ignores posted data, so I think the data url handler > shouldn't deviate from that. Either both raise an error when data is posted or none. Ah, fair enough, then. Thanks for the updated patch, I'll take a look (unless someone beats me to it). |
|
|
| msg176294 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2012-11-24 17:00 |
| New changeset a182367eac5a by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default': Issue #16423: urllib.request now has support for ``data:`` URLs. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a182367eac5a |
|
|
| msg176295 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 17:03 |
| I've committed your patch after having made the few very minor changes mentioned in the review. Thank you very much! |
|
|
| msg176298 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 17:23 |
| Great! Feels awesome to have my first bit of code contributed to the Python project. :) |
|
|
| msg176299 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 17:49 |
| You're welcome! We're always happy to have new contributors. I've forgotten something: could you sign a contributor agreement? You'll find instructions at http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ |
|
|
| msg176300 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 17:55 |
| Will do (later today). |
|
|
| msg176304 - (view) |
Author: Mathias Panzenböck (panzi) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 18:30 |
| Hmm, which of the two initial licenses should I choose? Which one do you rather want me to choose? |
|
|
| msg176305 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-11-24 18:39 |
| > Hmm, which of the two initial licenses should I choose? Which one do > you rather want me to choose? Whichever you prefer. They should be equivalent in their terms (non-copyleft free licenses). |
|
|