3 ms·
I don't think it's an abuse, RFC9110 defines 414 as a response for "refusing to service the request because the target URI is longer than the server is willing
by ollien 5mo ago
I don't think it's an abuse, RFC9110 defines 414 as a response for "refusing to service the request because the target URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret". Since adding a query string involves only adding characters, this seems fine; there's no stipulation as far as I can tell that all pages a server hosts must adhere to the same length. I'd be curious if any well-known clients interpret it that way though, and make caching decisions based on it. As far as I know, they shouldn't.
Obviously it's against the spirit of the thing, but I don't think it's wrong per-se.
- lucketone 5mo agoIf the goal is to be misleading, but technically correct, it hits the bullseye
- ollien 5mo agoWhen the goal is "the funniest way", I think that's a hit :)
- chrismorgan 5mo agoI reckon it is still an abuse. I am willing to interpret longer target URIs… so long as they don’t contain a question mark. /no-query-strings is longer than /?.
- zymhan 5mo agoThe standard doesn't say that you must accept all URIs up to a certain length. You're allowed to decide, based on context, what is "too long". That is to say, you're allowed to have a double standard. And I love this sort of stuff, thanks for sharing.