[whatwg] element "img" with HTTP POST method

Martin Janecke whatwg.org at kaor.in
Fri Dec 31 07:19:13 PST 2010

Am 10.12.2010 um 18:06 schrieb Julian Reschke:

>>> If the URI length is a problem because of browsers, fix the browsers to extend the limits, instead of adding a completely new feature.
>> That's a good idea. Can we define a minimum length in the spec that should/must be supported? As a point of reference for browser vendors and web page authors? I didn't find a reliable point of reference other than http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.1 ...
>> Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths
>> above 255 bytes, because some older client or proxy
>> implementations might not properly support these lengths.
>> ... which isn't sufficient for the use cases.
>> ...
> We can't change what RFC 2616 says, but we *did* already change this in the drafts for the next revision:
> "Various ad-hoc limitations on request-target length are found in practice. It is RECOMMENDED that all HTTP senders and recipients support request-target lengths of 8000 or more octets." <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-12.html#rfc.section.4.1.2.p.19>

Sounds great!


More information about the whatwg mailing list