Closed tra38 closed 8 years ago
This would be reasonable. Is there a situation that this would break people's existing code?
I understand your point @tra38 but changing this behavior might break existing code in which the caller already escapes the file name and that would result in a double escape. We could put a flag with by default does not escape but it kind of defeat the purpose for elegance.
I'm going to close this.
This issue can be resolved IF you use URI.escape on the filename. For example
But this solution seems so inelegant. It would be preferable if the library itself does the "URI escape" instead of the server-side algorithm.