HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#1

Post by treve » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:19 AM UTC

HTTP/1.1 just got a major update
evertpot.com

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#2

Post by purephase » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:42 AM UTC

Forwarded and a permanent re-direct are nice changes. This is a welcome change.

It will likely be awhile before widespread adoption, but to see a standard move forward in such a seemingly small, but considerable way is great.

Kudos to those involved. I can't imagine it was an easy feat.

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#3

Post by gamegoblin » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:43 AM UTC

And I just finished implementing 2616 in a toy server of mine. Sigh. C'est la vie.

I'm glad this new spec apparently resolves a lot of ambiguities. I hated reading 2616 and some specs it depended on (email, URI, etc).

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#4

Post by BorisMelnik » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:44 AM UTC

I wonder what Googlebot will make of this. There is a lot of debate already amongst search engine developers on which type of redirect to use.

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#5

Post by treve » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:47 AM UTC

BorisMelnik wrote: post #4

I wonder what Googlebot will make of this. There is a lot of debate already amongst search engine developers on which type of redirect to use.

A crawler like that should typically only do GET requests. The 308 is really mainly useful for HTTP clients doing for example a PUT or POST request on some url, and the server wants the client to repeat that exact request on for example a different server.

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#6

Post by treve » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 4:15 AM UTC

gamegoblin wrote: post #3

And I just finished implementing 2616 in a toy server of mine. Sigh. C'est la vie. I'm glad this new spec apparently resolves a lot of ambiguities. I hated reading 2616 and some specs it depended on (email, URI, etc).

These specs clarify 2616. 'Major' may have been a poor choice of words, but if you were 2616 compliant, you should be largely compliant with these specs as well.

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#7

Post by __david__ » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 4:35 AM UTC

Finally, the spec is crystal clear that message bodies on GET requests are not illegal.

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#8

Post by colanderman » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 4:39 AM UTC

__david__ wrote: post #7

Finally, the spec is crystal clear that message bodies on GET requests are not illegal.

Pardon my ignorance but how are GET payloads useful? Does that not violate REST principles?

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#9

Post by derengel » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 4:41 AM UTC

As someone new to HTTP, what would be the most pragmatic way to read through this RFCs in the context of building web applications or HTTP APIs but not to the level of wanting to implement a http server or http client? for example: order of reading, what can be avoided, what is not widely use or implemented, the basics of the protocol, etc...

Re: HTTP/1.1 just got a major update

#10

Post by wtetzner » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 4:56 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #8

__david__ wrote: post #7

Finally, the spec is crystal clear that message bodies on GET requests are not illegal.

Pardon my ignorance but how are GET payloads useful? Does that not violate REST principles?

I'm not sure how. As long as a GET request doesn't change your resources, it should be fine.

The reason I can think of for sending a payload in a GET is if the data you wanted to send in a query string is too large.