- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:52:17 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: Jeroen de Borst <J.deBorst@F5.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <37DA5053-17A1-44EC-A0F7-A2BE77252309@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: > >On 21 Jul 2014, at 10:29 am, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> = >wrote: > >> In message <CFF29A8A.13500%j.deborst@f5.com>, Jeroen de Borst writes: >>=20 >>> Does adding :query imply that seeing a '?' in :path now requires = >error >>> handling? >>=20 >> It be a good idea to make the :query optional to use. >>=20 >> That way people who care about the compression get it, and people >> who worry about security impacts can avoid it. > >That sounds like an interop nightmare=85 what do you do if there are = >both? Lots of edge cases... You always append '?' and :query and leave people with the result the asked for... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 14:52:53 UTC