4 ms·

HTTP/1.x is anything but simple. They were under defined and overly complex in many ways. The original RFC was so complex that when reworked, they split it into

by darnir 5y ago

HTTP/1.x is anything but simple. They were under defined and overly complex in many ways. The original RFC was so complex that when reworked, they split it into 6 documents. I've worked heavily on some HTTP implementations and its ridiculously hard to get them right. Not to mention, this "server" only responds to a simple well formed GET request. Without handling about 90% of what the HTTP specifications talk about. Its a nice project, but it doesn't speak to the simplicity of HTTP

kevinoid 5y ago
I agree. As with many things, it's only simple as long as you ignore the complexities. As they say, the devil's in the details. > this "server" only responds to a simple well formed GET request. And not even that. The Request-URI in a Simple-Request line (inherited from HTTP/0.9) may contain escape characters. (e.g. `GET /my%20file.txt` to get `my file.txt`) HTTP/1.0 states "The origin server must decode the Request-URI in order to properly interpret the request."[1] This server does not. Which is not to say that this server isn't interesting. Just that it's not a demonstration of how easy HTTP/1 is to parse. [1]: https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Request-URI https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Request-URI