Open pwinckles opened 2 years ago
It occurred to me that another approach to backwards compatible validation would be to only decode %0D
, %0A
, and %25
when decoding paths in manifests. Normally, when percent-decoding, you'd decode all encoded characters as described here. However, by only decoding these three a correct BagIt 1.0 implementation would still be able to validate most bags produced by existing implementations.
For example, if a bag contains the file test%201.txt
, then an existing implementation would write it to the manifest as data/test%201.txt
when it should actually be data/test%25201.txt
. However, if you only decode %0D
, %0A
, and %25
, then the paths are equivalent.
This approach does not work for files that naturally include these three strings. For example, if a bag has a file named test%251.txt
. Existing implementations would write it to the manifest as data/test%251.txt
when it should be data/test%25251.txt
. These paths are not equivalent. The first decodes to data/test%1.txt
and the second decodes to data/test%251.txt
.
While not perfect, I think this approach would greatly improve validation compatibility.
I recently discovered that the BagIt 1.0 specification requires that
CR
,LF
, and%
in file paths within manifest files are percent-encoded, and that there isn't a single BagIt implementation that does this correctly. Implementations either only encodeCR
andLF
but not%
or they encode nothing.This implementation only encodes
CR
andLF
but not%
. This is problematic because it would fail to validate BagIt 1.0 bags that include file paths containing%
characters. Likewise, it would create bags that would fail BagIt 1.0 validation in the case that there are paths that naturally contain percent-encoded characters.For example, let's say a bag contains the file
data/file%0A1.txt
. This file should be written to the manifest per the spec asdata/file%250A1.txt
. However, this implementation writes it asdata/file%0A1.txt
. This means, that when this implementation validates a properly constructed 1.0 bag it will look for the filedata/file%250A1.txt
which does not exist. Similarly, if another implementation that follows the spec attempts to validate a bag produced by this implementation, it would look fordata/file\n1.txt
, which does not exist.It would seem desirable to me to move the ecosystem in the direction of properly implementing the 1.0 specification, while at the same acknowledging that there are a large number of 1.0 bags in existence that may then become invalid.
As such, it may be prudent to, when validating bags, fall back on a series of tests. You may want to first attempt to validate per the spec, and then, if a file cannot be found, attempt to locate it by either only decoding the
CR
andLF
or leaving the path unchanged, ideally validating all of the files using the same method.I have not examined
fetch.txt
implementations, but the same encoding requirements exist for paths in that file as well. This is potentially a thornier problem to address in a backward compatible way as it is unclear if the pathdata/file%250A1.txt
is supposed to createdata/file%250A1.txt
(incorrect) ordata/file%0A1.txt
(correct).Finally, I created a related ticket against the spec discussing this encoding problem, in particular how it breaks checksum utility compatibility.