W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: consensus on :query ?

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:19:16 +0000
To: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emcee92f2c-d1a0-49cb-876f-5a1808085b38@bodybag>

there already is a definition for all the parts of the URI, they are 
just glued together is all.

Actually though I wasn't proposing splitting path down to nodes.  That's 
file-system dependent and should be opaque to http.

But it shouldn't require encoding to fit into a URI.  It's not just / 
and ? (rare in a real path since it's usually a wild-card character 
anyway)... it's more often unicode and spaces that had to be encoded.

And there's probably little value in splitting out authority as well.

Adrien

------ Original Message ------
From: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; "HTTP Working Group" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 24/07/2014 12:35:19 p.m.
Subject: Re: consensus on :query ?

>On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> 
>wrote:
>>
>>  a URI is just a construction of several components glued together 
>>with
>>  delimiters, e.g.
>>
>>  ://
>>  @
>>  :
>>  /
>>  ?
>>  &
>>  #
>>
>>  etc.
>>
>>  this places constraints on the component values, since you can't use
>>  structural delimiters inside values. This means if we do want to 
>>include
>>  such things, we have to escape them, and it snowballs from there.
>>
>>  Imagine if we just sent all individual parts of a URI in different 
>>fields,
>
>We'll be facing a much more daunting task - define an official
>structure for URIs. Is it a list? Is it a map? A multimap? How are
>entries ordered? Should it be a tree instead? And "why don't you guys
>just make it like json?!" etc. etc.
>
>Zhong Yu
>bayou.io
>
>>  where we didn't need to parse them to distinguish the parts. No more 
>>%20 vs
>>  +, no more string escape unicode exploits.
>>
>>  Sure we might need to aggregate things to create a cache key etc, but 
>>that's
>>  a safe operation.
>>
>>
>>  ------ Original Message ------
>>  From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>  To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
>>  Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>  Sent: 24/07/2014 2:52:15 a.m.
>>  Subject: Re: consensus on :query ?
>>
>>>  On 22 July 2014 17:11, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I was really hoping moving to a binary protocol would help us 
>>>>avoid
>>>>  string
>>>>   parsing
>>>
>>>
>>>  What a quaint idea :) Especially for URIs, for which denying their
>>>  string nature would be something of a surprise.
>>>
>>>  At this stage, we've made the framing binary, which helps. But more
>>>  drastic changes (see Julian's -jfv draft) are needed to make the
>>>  "binary benefit" more pervasive.
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 01:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC