:) Right, that's the problem. As "esacpe" in URI is optional in RFC3261, I have no strong reason to ask the other team to convert %23 to #. Actually I was laughed because I asserted that the escape is a "MUST" before I read the RFC carefully. On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Gang Liu <gangban.lau at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess remote party didn't convert %23 into #. > > regards, > Gang > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Hoi-Ho Chan <hoiho.chan at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> # must be escaped to %23 per the SIP syntax. If the remote party requires >> # to appear in the user portion of the URI then it's not conforming to the >> standard. >> >> Thanks >> Donald >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Peter Cai <newptcai at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> PJSIP automatically escape "#" to "%23". >>> >>> But in my case, I have to have "#" un-escaped in the message. >>> >>> I've skimmed the documents of PJSIP but didn't found any clues how to >>> change this behavior. >>> >>> Has anyone ever met the same problem? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org >>> >>> pjsip mailing list >>> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org >>> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org >> >> pjsip mailing list >> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org >> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > > -- ???????????DNA?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
