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 00:35:47 UTC