Re: consensus on :query ?

I'm -1 on having a separate :query. If only because it requires
implementers to look in two separate locations and perform additional
string manipulation for a task that currently (in h1) doesn't. I have seen
deployed implementations that split routing detail between the path and
query string. The relatively small theoretical compression gain is not
worth the additional cost.
On Jul 21, 2014 8:12 AM, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>