Douglas Wilson

In 4.x, it is not a simple proxy. Perhaps it can be in 5.0, but the behavior change just needs to be evaluated first.

Ah yes, that is def a footgun. We should make it an error when trying to use a reserved word in 1.x line and also get a beta of 2.0...

Not currently, so that is another thing to add: docs for this :)

Can you have different view engine options for different view engines? Or do all engines ends up with the same options?

Ah. Can you describe this feature a bit more so I can understand it? We will also need to understand it in order to write up the documentation. Is there...

Hi @lublak sorry you are having trouble. There is no need to disable the decoding for this. Your client should be sending the URL as a valid encoding of `/open/image50%25.png`...

Apologies, I didn't mean to close the issue, as we could add some kind of app-level config to disabled/custom the param decoding.

Hi @lublak by invalid, I am referring to what Express.js considers invalid. The reason you are getting the error is indeed because the URL is invalid according to Express.js, as...

No problem. The current behavior of decoding params won't be changed, as there can be security implications of your proposal, but it would depend on the application if they are...

No, they are not supported, but no reason why support cannot be added 👍 . If you (or anyone else) would like to add support for this, please go ahead...