Re: URI equivalence and query parameter sequence

Dale Anderson <dra@redevised.net> Thu, 14 July 2011 04:57 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 F254521F8B6D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1jmygP3HF3y for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A75121F89FF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QhDyU-0004IP-5x for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:56:34 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <dra@redevised.net>) id 1QhDyM-0004HZ-IA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:56:26 +0000
Received: from mail-yi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <dra@redevised.net>) id 1QhDyK-0005nW-LU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:56:26 +0000
Received: by yib12 with SMTP id 12so3376519yib.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.178.21 with SMTP id f21mr1809370anp.138.1310619359010; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.212.20 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <076601cc3fee$6166b8b0$24342a10$@tavis.ca>
References: <076601cc3fee$6166b8b0$24342a10$@tavis.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:55:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CANNRn6+UwS9esQq-QE0k95_tNObiQBy859ckgT3zEtcS5iRerA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dale Anderson <dra@redevised.net>
To: Darrel Miller <darrel@tavis.ca>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="005045017caa545de804a80059da"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=dra@redevised.net; helo=mail-yi0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1QhDyK-0005nW-LU f8c12f030db3dd4cacc9ab79dc88231b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI equivalence and query parameter sequence
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANNRn6+UwS9esQq-QE0k95_tNObiQBy859ckgT3zEtcS5iRerA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10940
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1QhDyU-0004IP-5x@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:56:34 +0000

Darrel,

In terms of how the original web server interprets the request, named query
parameters' order may likely matter only in the case of trump or order when
repeatedly specified query parameters.

But, keeping them consistent may help avoid cache pollution in a simple
caching scheme that does not evaluate the query string meaningfully, rather
keys off the literal URI.

Also bear in mind the case of unnamed query parameters like ?buy&cat which
are certainly important as far as their identity is their index ordinal
position in the series

In my estimation!

Regards,

Dale

2011/7/11 Darrel Miller <darrel@tavis.ca>

> To get to the point, I would like to know if the following two URIs can be
> considered equivalent.
>
>   http://example.org/location?x=34&y=67
>
>    http://example.org/location?y=67&x=34
>
> The HTTP spec refers to RFC 3986 for rules on normalization and comparison.
> In RFC3986, it does discuss the use of "syntax based normalization"
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6) but makes no mention of
> query
> parameters.
>
> It is my understanding (and quite possibly incorrect) that ordering of
> query
> parameters is not significant to most server implementations.  Is there any
> official opinion on this?  Is it reasonable to consider these two URIs as
> accessing the same resource? Or should I redirect one URI to the other?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darrel Miller
>
>
>
>
>