W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2010

Re: URI length statistics "in the wild"?

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <321037.78744.qm@web112620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: uri@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Hi Dan,

I feel your pain.  My Web Mail fetched your missive with a GET in (a downright pathological) 515 Bytes.

If I might make a suggestion though: Apache may have some hints to the "standards" in their documentation on how to parse server logs.

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
> Subject: URI length statistics "in the wild"?
> To: uri@w3.org
> Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 5:06 AM
> Hi folks
> Some topics seem peculiarly ill-suited for Web searches -
> hence this
> mail. I am looking for data on typical lengths of URIs, in
> particular
> as they're used in the public Web. Breakdown by scheme
> would be nice,
> but anything would be a start.
> Context for this enquiry is an investigation into the use
> of
> mechanisms like QR Codes and also audio encodings (eg.
> http://github.com/diva/digital-voices/ )
> as a way of passing URIs
> around, eg. to a smartphone from a media centre. I'd like
> to know
> what's out there, what's feasible to encode using these
> techniques,
> and as well as what the official limits are. In
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 I don't see much
> about URI length
> except in the reg-name portion.
> So - what are the official limits? what are the practical
> limits (eg.
> imposed by common implementations)? Can we say that 99.9%
> of URIs in
> the public Web are shorter than ...X chars?
> Ideally barcode and audio encodings wouldn't impose
> arbitrary limits;
> however it would be good to document what's folk can expect
> to
> encounter, if only for sensible testing of error
> correction, reader
> accuracy etc.
> Thanks for any pointers,
> Dan

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 12:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC