W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: QUERY Verb Proposal

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:06:18 +0000
Message-ID: <54BE60DA.4020803@apache.org>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 20/01/15 13:22, Yves Lafon wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>
>>> One of the reasons the HTTP WG is very unlikely to standardize this
>>> is that there's so little technical advantage to doing this with a
>>> new verb (at least as far as I can see).  The main reasons would be
>>> queries > 2k, but your saved queries solve that, and allowing
>>> intermediate nodes to understand and cache based on query semantics,
>>> ... and MAYBE the Get option would allow that.
>>
>> Some of the disadvantages of your approach I can think of at present:
>>
>> ? Queries are limited to < 2k
> Source?

Server side limts seem to be 8K nowadays (Jetty, squid-cache). [1]

Browsers have limits: [2].

Locally, we have (accidentally, machine generated) ended up with 
megabyte URLs that worked just fine.  It doesn't make them a good idea 
though; buffering and decoding overheads begin to show whereas 
processing a body can be done more efficiently.

	Andy

[1]
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200208/0423.html
http://www.spinics.net/lists/squid/msg34727.html

[2] https://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427

>
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:06:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:52 UTC