- 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>
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