[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnash-dev] non-conformance to HTTP standards
From: |
Eric Hughes |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnash-dev] non-conformance to HTTP standards |
Date: |
Thu, 17 May 2007 08:09:30 -0600 |
At 04:46 AM 5/17/2007, Martin Guy wrote:
I've found what I consider something completely harebrained in the
HTTP/1.1 standard, so I decided to violate it.
That's a pretty bad principle to start from...
I didn't start there. I ended up there.
Forgive me, I'm having trouble understanding the issue.
It's entirely syntax. It has nothing to do with either semantics (what it
means) or pragmatics (what it does).
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that cygnal
did act on these before, but now, in accordance with the standard,
does not?
It didn't do much either way before. I am writing a proper parser for HTTP
protocols, which includes an HTTP Request line, which I am writing to
accept a grammar larger than the spec calls for. Strictly speaking, that's
a standards violation.
This point deserve a clarification. I'm not generating anything to
standard. I am accepting something not to standard, and therefore possibly
masking a standards violation by some other piece of software.
As far as I know, everything after the ? is server-side-software
dependent and can be interpreted by a cgi script or what have you; is
part of the cygnal spec that it responds to such URL extensions
automatically?
I'm not addressing what any stuff after "?" means; that's a semantic
issue. I'm not address what Cygnal does with any stuff after "?"; that's a
pragmatic issue. I'm only concerned at present with the fact that a "?" is
there; that's the syntactic issue. The existence of a query (which starts
with "?") itself is the point. The standard is not written in such a way
that you can plunk down a query after an otherwise-valid URI. Go figure.
Eric
Re: [Gnash-dev] non-conformance to HTTP standards, strk, 2007/05/17