QUrl vs KURL - here's some benchmark results for you

[Waldo Bastian]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 23:59, David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:46, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > QUrl in Qt 4 is pretty fast compared to KURL.
>
> I never had any doubts about that. My concern is more for correctness - not
> in terms of the RFC, but in terms of the web. KURL has special code for
> preserving encoding used by websites (Waldo? Can you give more details on
> this?).

Websites provide URLs that consists of octets. Some of those octets may be 
%-encoded, some may not. It's important to preserve the exact octets as they 
appear in the page. However, as one of the first things, khtml converts all 
characters from 8-bit to a 16-bit QString, so if the octets where not 
%-encoded they may now have been changed as part of the toUnicode 
transformation. The KURL constructor tries to undo this transformation in the 
constructor and then %-encode all non-ascii characters. 

Cheers,
Waldo                                                    


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050603/76d57d26/attachment.sig>