W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ]

From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:33:50 +0000
Cc: Ray Polk <raypolk@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E6BE420C-271E-4240-BF37-1387E7885BA1@gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Out of interest, this may be because HTML specifics form GET to target and overwrite the URI query whereas form POST will always target the request body.

I'm currently investigating if it may be possible to eliminate this restriction in addition to the declaration of headers via inputs in a proposal for HTMLWG issue - http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/195

Thanks,
Cam


On 19/01/2012, at 9:29 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:50:11PM -0700, Ray Polk wrote:
>> Possibly irrelevant (does this group care about common practices by user
>> agents?) but....are there clients that have issues with passing query
>> params to non GET verbs?
> 
> It's always possible that some might exist somewhere but it doesn't seem
> to be the common case. At least even an old seamonkey 1 and opera 8 here
> have no problem at all with this :
> 
> Test code :
>  <html><body><form method="POST" action="http://127.0.0.1:8000/foo?bar=1">
>  <input type="hidden" name="var1" value="val1"><input type="submit">
>  </form></body></html>
> 
> Request sent :
>  POST /foo?bar=1 HTTP/1.1
>  Host: 127.1:8000
>  User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100301 SeaMonkey/1.1.19
>  Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
>  Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
>  Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
>  Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
>  Keep-Alive: 300
>  Connection: keep-alive
>  Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
>  Content-Length: 9
> 
>  var1=val1
> 
>> If many/most do have such a limitation, I can see
>> how people might try to avoid using query on other verbs.
> 
> I don't see any such reason. Right now it works at least for some clients,
> so better not to suggest breaking something which works (and is already
> used).
> 
>> (Neophyte question:  Is discussion of this sort seen as polluting this
>> mailing list?  ...or is it cool?)
> 
> All discussions that are cool to some are pollution for other ones
> (including this one). Better focus on draft-18 review and bring here
> any possibly missed issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Willy
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 11:34:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT