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

Re: consensus on :query ?

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:02:38 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jeroen de Borst <J.deBorst@F5.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <20140721150238.GC28569@1wt.eu>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:52:17PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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...

Not exactly, I'd say you append '?' only if :query is present (eventhough
empty) then append :query.

Willy
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 15:09:46 UTC

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