Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?query"

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Tue, 04 June 2013 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86ED721F9CAF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=5.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8mf+E-QCu7W for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1806321F9B89 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 03:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UjoAY-0006hR-U3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:08:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:08:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UjoAY-0006hR-U3@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UjoAH-0006ei-Ip for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:08:29 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UjoAF-0003To-VC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:08:29 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.34]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MSoaR-1UrGR20fiP-00Rsny for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:08:01 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2013 10:08:00 -0000
Received: from p5B232014.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.32.20] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2013 12:08:00 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ID4IWX27IB/fOVgTiEJuRTXOia4es6nckxnxXJ4 8sKXGBgdRa5WaT
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:08:01 +0200
Message-ID: <t2erq8dbco34odbfteifa34lig7i1dmli4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.136, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UjoAF-0003To-VC e34f923b57a91f28c72d5d006f078e68
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?query"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/t2erq8dbco34odbfteifa34lig7i1dmli4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18171
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

* Zhong Yu wrote:
>The question is whether this is a valid HTTP URI:
>
>    http://example.com?query
>
>According to RFC2616, it is invalid, a slash before the question mark
>is mandatory(i.e. http://example.com/?query)

That may well be unintentional, RFC 2396 certainly allows for the path
to be omitted and RFC 2616 talks about an "empty abs_path" as opposed to
an omitted abs_path in section 3.2.3; RFC 1945 does the same. RFC 1808
does not allow it though, so quite possibly RFC 2616 failed to account
for the change between RFC 1808 and RFC 2396.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/