On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:02 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. > > Will And in the case where there is both :path with a ? and a :query, you then...? Put in a %3F and the :query? Omit the :query? concatenate the query to the path with the ? or the %3f? I agree with Mark; making this optional makes no sense. Ted
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 15:23:43 UTC