nginx not completly http/1.1 compliant?

Matt Lewandowsky matt at
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>
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:44 AM
To: <nginx at>
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 
> path.
> luben


More information about the nginx mailing list