4 ms·
Umm, because that valid URL uses "mailto" protocol, which doesn't support "GET" requests as you described?
by jsn 17y ago
Umm, because that valid URL uses "mailto" protocol, which doesn't support "GET" requests as you described?
- jrockway 17y agoActually, it uses HTTP with "mailto" as the username and "username" as the password.
- andreyf 17y agoThat's not part of HTTP 1.1, just a popular convention for URLs carried over from Telnet/FTP, see: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1738.txt http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1738.txt
- joshu 17y agoWhere, specifically, RFC 2616 does the spec say you must specify a http URI? 5.1.2 just specifies that it's a RequestURI and does not further define it. 3.2 refers you to RFC 2396, the URI spec, which includes mailto. It's a valid URI and you are allowed to ask for it.
- andreyf 17y ago5.1.2 just specifies that it's a RequestURI and does not further define it. I'm not sure if I understand. The one I'm looking at further defines it as: Request-URI = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path | authority Edit: ah, of which, absoluteURI refers to 3.2.1, which references RFC2396, which includes mailto. Still, doesn't include user:password@domain, though :-P Src: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
- joshu 17y agouser:password@domain is a browser convention, not part of a URL, like I said.
- joshu 17y agoNo, the user@pass thing is a browser stuff. It's not sent as part of the request line.