nginx not completly http/1.1 compliant?
matt at nepheliad.net
Wed Feb 4 22:04:05 MSK 2009
I am fully aware of what's "supposed" to happen with links consisting of
solely query components. ;) However, such links are somewhat uncommon and
may not be tested in "non-standard" browsers. Though, as it's a basic part
of the spec, I'd be hesitant to trust a UA that can't even get that right...
But, at the same time, I'd try to make it a point to not have my pages
generate that style of URL. As Jon Postel said best, "Be liberal in what you
accept, and conservative in what you send."
Keep in mind that even now, there are still browsers out there that don't
properly handle fragments. They may be rare, but I do get the occasional
request for "#fragmentname" in my error logs. I can only assume that there
are a few browsers which would also request "?foo=bar" without an absolute
path, and it's probably not an unfair assumption...
From: "luben karavelov" <luben at unixsol.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:44 AM
To: <nginx at sysoev.ru>
Subject: Re: nginx not completly http/1.1 compliant?
> Matt Lewandowsky wrote:
>> I suspect that coming across links like <a href="?fdas=affa"> isn't
>> overly common and the exotic UAs may not have tested such links.
> The meaning of such a links is that the UA should call the same absolute
> path with different GET params. It does not mean that there is no absolute
More information about the nginx