5 ms·
That went from "Oh, another article about the parts of a URI" to "wow..." very quickly. The path parameters were kind of neat, I was under the impression ; coul
by Bockit 13y ago
That went from "Oh, another article about the parts of a URI" to "wow..." very quickly. The path parameters were kind of neat, I was under the impression ; could be used instead of & and was only for query string parameters (Didn't even know path parameters were a thing).
- Yhippa 13y agoI didn't either and I like the idea of that. I'll have to try that when writing up the paging for my next web app for something like search results.
- adamauckland 13y agoPath parameters aren't particularly well supported on many server platforms, unfortunately. Of course, it does depend on what parser gets them first!
- mooism2 13y agoI believe it used to be recommended that applications accept ; to separate query string parameters so that if a url containing query string parameters was double-html-escaped for some reason... e.g. a link to http://example.com/?colour=blue&age=old with link text balloon should appear in html as <a href="http://example.com/?colour=blue&age=old">balloon</a> but might erroneously appear as <a href="http://example.com/?colour=blue&amp;age=old">balloon</a> ...or if a (simple) client neglected to html-decode the uri for some reason, then the link would still work. Whether this was officially recommended or was merely a folk recommendation, I don't know.
- ohwp 13y agoThe difference: Does not work: http://www.foobar.com/api?v=2/get?item=1 Does work: http://www.foobar.com/api;v=2/get?item=1