| Date | Commit message (Collapse) |
|---|
|
This is not explicitly specified or listed as an example in in
rfc2616. However, rfc2616 section 3.2.1 defers to rfc2396[1]
for the definition of absolute URIs, so the userinfo component
should be allowable, even if it does not make any sense.
In the real world, previous versions of Mongrel used URI.parse()
and thus allowed userinfo, so we also have precedence to allow
userinfo to be compatible *in case* our interpretation of the
RFCs is incorrect. This change is unfortunately needed because
*occasionally* real clients rely on them.
Reported-by: Scott Chacon
[1] rfc3986 obsoletes rfc2396, but also includes userinfo
|
|
This is allowed according to RFC 2396, section 3.3 and matches
the behavior of URI.parse, as well.
|
|
HTTP/0.9 only supports GET requests and didn't require a
version number in the request line. Additionally, only
a single CRLF was required.
Note: we don't correctly generate HTTP/0.9 responses, yet.
|
|
ref: rfc 2616, section 5.1.1
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.1.1
Current version of Rack::Lint agrees with us, too. While
I've yet to encounter actual usage of non-upper REQUEST_METHODs,
we might as well support what Rack supports.
|
|
While I still consider pound to be irrelevant, but I still
sometimes get hand-crafted HTTP requests that come in with
multiline headers. Since these are part of the HTTP specs and
not difficult to support, we might as well support them for
the sake of completeness.
|
|
|
|
We couldn't do proper namespacing for the C module so there was
a potential conflict with Init_http11() in Mongrel. This was
needed because Mongrel's HTTP parser could be used in some
applications and we may be unfortunate enough need to support
them.
|