Web servers should refuse requests for random, unnecessary URLs

Re:Web servers should refuse requests for random, unnecessar... by cellularmitosis on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:35PM (#36621589)

We can argue about the semantics of "wrong" all day, but the lesson here is that not following standards and conventions creates extra work for everyone downstream.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web servers should refuse requests for random, unnecessar... by moring on Friday July 07, 2023 @06:59AM (#36629899)

They followed the standard though. They returned 200 for a resource that exists.

Many responses here seem to be based on the misunderstanding that this is about "not following a standard is sometimes okay-ish", when it's actually about the fact that the standard does not rigorously define what a "resource" is and what it means for the resource to "exist", other than a circular definition based on status codes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web servers should refuse requests for random, unnecessar... by cellularmitosis on Friday July 07, 2023 @11:22AM (#36633104)

Serving an identical resource at all possible paths is no one's idea of following established conventions. That's what redirects are for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web servers should refuse requests for random, unnecessar... by phlakaton on Saturday July 08, 2023 @02:56AM (#36642022)

Is it an identical resource? How do you know? But let's say they are identical. Where in the HTTP spec does it say identical resources may not be served at different endpoints? Nowhere, of course.

You talk about violating conventions and standards. The conventions are defined by the HTTP spec. The standard is the HTTP spec. Neither are, so far as I can tell, being violated here.

[ Parent | on HN ]