httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <>
Subject Re: StrictURI in the wild [Was: Backporting HttpProtocolOptions survey]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:59:04 GMT

On 09/14/2016 07:17 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 06:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Jacob Champion <
>> <>> wrote:
>>     (My goal in asking this question is not to stare and point and
>>     laugh, but more to figure out whether we are skating to where the
>>     puck is going. It would be nice for users to know which
>>     specification StrictURI is being strict about.)
>> RFC3986 as incorporated by and expanded upon by reference in RFC7230.
> at least (if I'm understanding correctly) three exceptions ('|', '[', ']') because
of what we consider to be
> bugs in popular browsers.
> FWIW, I am +1 to those exceptions because I think it's the pragmatic thing to do. But
based on the linked Mozilla bug
> thread, if they have decided to forsake the IETF RFCs and are instead following a separate
"specification" that has a
> habit of simply tracking things as they are, there's a decent chance that those bugs
will not be fixed. In which case
> StrictURI will never be "strict".
> I think that's bad from a documentation and usability standpoint. If WHATWG (hypothetically)
decided to bless more
> exceptions to the RFC, would we follow suit with StrictURI? Is StrictURI *really* an
option to follow the RFCs to the
> letter, or is it an option to try to do things as correctly as we can without breaking
major browsers?

I think it should be the later one in this case. I see no real use case for an option that
makes it fail with major



View raw message