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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 04 June 2013 07:49 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 4D37A21F9B4A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:49:40 -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 xoXl-loarcja for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D672421F9A5E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ujl7k-0000P2-N2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:53:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:53:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ujl7k-0000P2-N2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Ujl7Q-0000Mp-MW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:53:20 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Ujl7O-0003lr-Mm for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:53:19 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.20]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MLlbJ-1Uk25v03b1-000pgt for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:52:52 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2013 06:52:51 -0000
Received: from p5DD95A6D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.90.109] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2013 08:52:51 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ISHVjvkvIEIWGd08cOV0m59/S+WNxMX58QqQYvh zIpfcQx+gDsZXt
Message-ID: <51AD8EC1.4010608@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:52:49 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqFvFo2ztDBZwMVtSE54rvHthyJJc-8X-yFq=CSVMy9GXw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.483, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ujl7O-0003lr-Mm dbe52b2a1386dbf0b84ea7f3c719bcb3
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/51AD8EC1.4010608@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18166
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>

On 2013-06-04 01:04, 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)
>
> 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.
> ...

And then, others do.

Do you have any evidence of things breaking?

In general, I prefer consistency in edge cases like these.

Best regards, Julian