<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Gemal&apos;s Psyched Blog - Comments on Javascript escape()/unescape() NO LONGER suitable for URI manipulation</title>
		<link>http://gemal.dk/blog/2003/12/04/javascript_escapeunescape_no_longer_suitable_for_uri_ma/index.html</link>
		<description>Jungshik writes: This is to announce that escape()/unescape() was changed recently to make them compliant to ECMA 262 (ECMAscript edition 3). It&apos;s fixed in bug 44272. As a result, escape() and unescape() MUST NOT be used for URI manipulation any...</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:48:53 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:38:44 +0100</pubDate>
		<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.17</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		
		
			<item>
				<title>By Jesse Ruderman</title>
				<description>old escape(): encode in page&apos;s charset, then %hhnew escape(): %hh, %uhhhh for everything over unicode 256.encodeURIComponent(): encode in UTF-8, then %hhFor chrome, which is interpreted as UTF-8, the switch from escape() to encodeURIComponent is necessary and correct.  For Mozilla-specific web sites that relied on Mozilla&apos;s quirky escape() behavior, the answer is not clear.  For English-only sites, escape() is better until Netscape 4 finishes dying.Btw, encodeURIComponent rocks.  I used in the &quot;Blogidate XML Well-formedness&quot; bookmarklet to create the body of &quot;data:text/xml;charset=UTF-8,&quot; URLs, allowing the bookmarklet to work with XHTML that contains Japanese text.</description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>old escape(): encode in page's charset, then %hh</p>

<p>new escape(): %hh, %uhhhh for everything over unicode 256.</p>

<p>encodeURIComponent(): encode in UTF-8, then %hh</p>

<p>For chrome, which is interpreted as UTF-8, the switch from escape() to encodeURIComponent is necessary and correct.  For Mozilla-specific web sites that relied on Mozilla's quirky escape() behavior, the answer is not clear.  For English-only sites, escape() is better until Netscape 4 finishes dying.</p>

<p>Btw, encodeURIComponent rocks.  I used in the "Blogidate XML Well-formedness" bookmarklet to create the body of "data:text/xml;charset=UTF-8," URLs, allowing the bookmarklet to work with XHTML that contains Japanese text.</p>]]></content:encoded>
				<link>http://gemal.dk/blog/2003/12/04/javascript_escapeunescape_no_longer_suitable_for_uri_ma/#comment1?from=rss-comment</link>
				<guid>http://gemal.dk/blog/2003/12/04/javascript_escapeunescape_no_longer_suitable_for_uri_ma/#comment1</guid>
				<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:32:58 +0100</pubDate>
				<author>
					<name>Jesse Ruderman</name>
					<email>jruderman@hmc.edu</email>
				</author>
			</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>

