HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?query"
Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2013 23:07 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 0A59921F8808 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 CG9Gu1yLVFcX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC2E11E80BA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ujdof-0005P3-PH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:05:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:05:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ujdof-0005P3-PH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1UjdoT-0005Mx-5R for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:05:17 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1UjdoS-0002zt-IH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:05:17 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n12so1416879oag.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YL9ipkyWISe9VwHH8vEvIsymj2zX8guNwYA5plvKnag=; b=vBuHaE3hwcJpu70X/cLcTMjP7e9ZZkXxkcs/MKnwebrD2YvBjs0u1Dkgo2sOgOJBTd kbEC65Upxx5/n3DlF5y+V8yZ3b0kMVxRUdlNuPgU0Q0ZHb3KDa/8QtPDB2Gm8RNyrUqu JI+pmvDJ1yA2v4eEwEky/K4HKqRDYXa2Tq78x822D4QIWokMtxHhK1UX622RXschDLu6 9qqwRjO4jN7Lnj2COGQPtXyfqthmExEYP7wid3B/01P43T4wFdxjU9aR2RgwSwQfShoS Lt0XUItuAl1Ji6ET0r7UnL4twUsIejNX0/VGIFiOt3DZkHgcLCpR+F8Jfqphc4y1BxP3 sn/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.79.198 with SMTP id l6mr10761397oex.47.1370300690687; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.79.8 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:04:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.711, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UjdoS-0002zt-IH 4d80ff35eb4ea4d07e73ce0a3c5398b1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?query"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18158
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>
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)
According to the latest bis draft, it is valid. The draft adopts the
generic URI syntax of RFC, which permits this kind of URI.
Any reason for this spec change? It seems risky; some old programs may
not be able to accept such URIs.
Zhong Yu
- HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?query" Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Julian Reschke
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Julian Reschke
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Julian Reschke
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP URI in the form of "http://example.com?q… Zhong Yu