| ▲ | nrds 5 hours ago |
| Wait until you realize that the difference between path and query string is entirely arbitrary and decided by the server. Query strings should never have existed. They are an implementation detail of CGI webservers that leaked all over everything and now smells really bad. |
|
| ▲ | mikeocool 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I dunno, it seems like the fact that we arrived at a fairly standard structure for URL paths that works pretty well is not a bad outcome. Seems a lot better than the other potential world we could lived in, where paths were a black box and every web server/framework invented their own structure for them. |
| |
| ▲ | hamburglar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My next website is going to have the path portion of the URL be a base64 encoded ASN.1 blob. | |
| ▲ | gritzko 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my current project I use URIs to refer to absolutely any entity in a git(-ish) repo. Files, branches, revisions, diffs, anything. URI turns out to be a really good addressing scheme for everything. Surprise. But the most used and abused element is always the path. Query takes a lot of that mess away. Might have been unmanageable otherwise. https://github.com/gritzko/beagle | | |
| ▲ | gritzko 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In fact, GitHub URIs are a good example of overusing paths: https://github.com/gritzko/beagle/blob/a7e17290a39250092055f... - user gritzko,
- project beagle,
- view blob,
- commit a7e17290a39250092055fcda5ae7015868dabdb4,
- file path VERBS.md
... all concatenated indiscriminately. | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s not an indiscriminate hierarchy. Grouping data by user is common and normal in computing: /home laid precedent decades ago. Project directories are an extremely common grouping within a user’s work sets. Yeah, some of us just dump random files in $HOME, but this is still a sensible tier two path component. The choice to make ‘view metadata-wrapped content in browser HTML output’ the default rather than ‘view raw file contents’ the default is legitimate for their usage. One could argue that using custom http headers would be preferable to a path element (to the exclusion of JavaScript being able to access them, iirc?) or that the path element blob should be moved into the domain component or should prefix rather than suffix the operands; all valid choices, but none implicitly better or worse here. Object hash is obviously mandatory for git permalinks, and is perhaps the only mandatory component here. (But notably, that’s not the same as a commit hash.) However, such paths could arguably be interpreted as maximally user-hostile. File path, interestingly enough, is completely disposable if one refers to a specific result object hash within a commit, but if the prior object hash was required to be a commit, then this is a valid unique identifier for the filesystem-tree contents of that commit. You could use the object hash instead of the full path within the commit hash, but that’s a pretty user-hostile way to go about this. So, then, which part of the ordering and path selections do you consider indiscriminate, and why? | | |
| ▲ | em-bee an hour ago | parent [-] | | actually, instead of the object hash, you could also use the commit-hash. then the filename would be mandatory, but the url would be more readable and usable: give me the file VERBS.md as it is at commit <hash> |
| |
| ▲ | em-bee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | what would be a better way of doing that? i am not disagreeing, but i just can't think of any way to improve on this. put everything into the query part? i prefer to use the query only for optional arguments. in this example the blob argument is the only thing that doesn't fit in my opinion. | | |
| ▲ | arjvik 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every object in git (commit, tree, revision of a single file) has a hash that is guaranteed unique within a repository (otherwise many more things than a web UI would break) and likely also globally. I can understand wanting to isolate repositories to prevent hash collisions from causing problems, but within a repo everything has a universally unique ID. edit: for instance, that specific VERBS.md is represented by the blob 3b9a46854589abb305ea33360f6f6d8634649108. | | |
| ▲ | em-bee an hour ago | parent [-] | | that's not what i meant. i was trying to suggest that the string "blob" does not fit. why is it there? why is it needed? https://github.com/gritzko/beagle/a7e17290a39250092055fcda5ae7015868dabdb4/VERBS.md
this should be sufficient to represent the file."blob" is like a descriptor of the value that follows. it would be like doing this: https://github.com/user/gritzko/project/beagle/blob/a7e17290a39250092055fcda5ae7015868dabdb4/file/VERBS.md
this actually irks me every time i see it in a github url | | |
| ▲ | sowbug 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They are following the /key/value/key/value pattern, but the first two pairs in a GitHub URL are fixed to user and project, which lets them omit the key names. I could see them not being willing to hardcode the third pair to blob. Back when GitHub URLs were kind of cool, github.com/user/gritzko/project/beagle would have been much less cool than just github.com/gritzko/beagle. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | iainmerrick 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Back in the day there was an attempt to introduce "matrix URIs" as a more structured alternative to query strings: https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/MatrixURIs.html Of course there's nothing to stop you using URIs like this (I think Angular does, or did at one point?) but I don't think the rules for relative matrix URIs were ever figured out and standardised, so browsers don't do anything useful with them. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | halayli 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nothing you said here is correct. Paths, query strings, and fragments are all well defined entities. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-3.3 |
| |
| ▲ | sroussey 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s a string between ? and # isn’t well defined. Or it is and it says very little. |
|
|
| ▲ | pverheggen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not entirely arbitrary - forms that use the GET method instead of POST will append form values as query params. For sites without Javascript, it's great for things like search boxes, tables with sorting/filtering, etc. instead of POST, since it preserves your query in the URL. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/... |
| |
| ▲ | msandford an hour ago | parent [-] | | It has always amazed me how much trouble the SPA folks are willing to go to in order to slowly rebuild just normal boring URLs with querystrings because users demand deep linking and back buttons and the like. Or you could accept that you're probably going to need a round trip to the server and use a normal URL and it's fine. For all but the absolute biggest websites in the world, anyhow. At Facebook or Google scale yeah it's needed. |
|
|
| ▲ | gpvos 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Query strings existed before CGI did, and the way they're defined to be filled in from web forms is quite useful; I wouldn't want to need Javascript to fit that into path format. There's nothing wrong about having things decided by the server; I don't get that part of your argument at all. |
| |
| ▲ | cobbzilla 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe dumb question: how does the server “decide” anything other than what file to serve? Today we have many choices but back in the day CGI was the first standard way to do it. So yes query parameters existed before CGI but to use them you had to hack your server to do something with them (iirc NCSA web servers had some magic hacks for queries). CGI drove standardization. | | |
| ▲ | stirfish 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | func specialHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
if time.Now().Weekday() == time.Tuesday {
http.NotFound(w, r)
return
}
fmt.Fprintln(w, "server made a decision")
}
Your server can make decisions however you program it to, you know? It's just software.Forgive the phone-posting. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jolmg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's arbitrary to a degree like the difference between using an attribute or child element in XML, but it's not entirely arbitrary. If you want to include data in the URL that's not part of the hierarchy of the path, query strings are good for that. |
|
| ▲ | paulddraper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you figure? Paths are hierarchical; query strings are name/value. (Note I speak of common usage.) You can create a different convention, but that one is pretty dang useful. |
