Limitations of the GET method in HTTP | Dropbox Developer Blog
We spend a lot of time thinking about web API design, and we learn a lot from other APIs and discussion with their authors. In the hopes that it helps others, we want to share some thoughts of our own. In this post, we'll discuss the limitations of the HTTP GET method and what we decided to do about it in our own API. As a rule, HTTP GET requests should not modify server state. This rule is useful
X-HTTP header method override and REST APIs
In a previous article, I was explaining how to extract HTTP headers. In this one, I will explain why the use of specific custom HTTP headers such as X-HTTP methods override can be very handy while developing and promoting a REST API. When deploying REST API based web services, you may encounter access limitations on both the server and client sides. 1) X-HTTP methods override and server side On th
List of default Accept values - HTTP | MDN
HTTP Guides Resources and URIs Identifying resources on the Web Data URLs Introduction to MIME types Common MIME types Choosing between www and non-www URLs HTTP guide Basics of HTTP Overview of HTTP Evolution of HTTP HTTP Messages A typical HTTP session Connection management in HTTP/1.x Protocol upgrade mechanism HTTP security Content Security Policy (CSP) HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) X-
HTTP Immutable Responses
The immutable HTTP response Cache-Control extension allows servers to identify resources that will not be updated during their freshness lifetime. This assures that a client never needs to revalidate a cached fresh resource to be certain it has not been modified. Note to Readers Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group mailing list (ietf[email protected]), which is archived at
Is the Content-Length header required for a HTTP/1.0 response?
Is the Content-Length header required for a HTTP/1.0 response? The HTTP spec mentions that it is required for the request, but doesn't mention anything about the response: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/draft-ietf-http-spec.html#Content-Length A valid Content-Length field value is required on all HTTP/1.0 request messages containing an entity body. If it is not required for the response, how
RFC 7230: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page] Obsoleted by: 9110, 9112 PROPOSED STANDARD Updated by: 8615 Errata ExistInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Fielding, Ed. Request for Comments: 7230 Adobe Obsoletes: 2145, 2616 J. Reschke, Ed. Updates: 2817, 2818 greenbytes Category: Standards Track June 2014 ISSN: 2070-1721 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax
RFC 7725: An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Bray Request for Comments: 7725 Textuality Category: Standards Track February 2016 ISSN: 2070-1721 An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles Abstract This document specifies a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code for use when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal demands. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track d
Why 451?
Hi, I’m Mark Nottingham. I write about the Web, protocol design, HTTP, Internet governance, and more. This is a personal blog, it does not represent anyone else. Find out more. Comments? Let's talk on Mastodon. @mnot@techpolicy.social other HTTP posts Yet More New HTTP Specs Wednesday, 8 June 2022 A New Definition of HTTP Monday, 6 June 2022 How Multiplexing Changes Your HTTP APIs Sunday, 13 Octob
Headless Commerce with Salesforce
Meet your shoppers and buyers anywhere with our trusted headless commerce solution. Use headless APIs and connected customer data. With Commerce Cloud’s trusted headless commerce platform, B2C and B2B businesses can meet customers anywhere. Headless APIs can weave commerce into any touchpoint, from social media to in-store kiosks to B2B buyer portals, and give you the power to take full control ov
Domain Sharding revisited | High Performance Web Sites
September 5, 2013 10:41 am | 13 Comments With the adoption of SPDY and progress on HTTP 2.0, I hear some people referring to domain sharding as a performance anti-pattern. I disagree. Sharding resources across multiple domains is a major performance win for many websites. However, there is room for debate. Domain sharding isn’t appropriate for everyone. It may hurt performance if done incorrectly.
HTTP/2ã¯æµè¡Œã‚‰ãªã„ã‘ã©åºƒã使ã‚れるもã®ã ã¨æ€ã†ã€‚ - ã¼ã¡ã¼ã¡æ—¥è¨˜
ã¾ãšã¯ Disclaimer〠「ã‚ãã¾ã§ã‚‚個人ã®æ„Ÿæƒ³ã§ã‚ã‚Šã€HTTP/2ã®åŠ¹èƒ½ã‚’ä¿è¨¼ã™ã‚‹ã‚‚ã®ã§ã¯ã‚ã‚Šã¾ã›ã‚“w〠1. ã¯ã˜ã‚ã«ã€ 先日ã€HTTP/2, HPACKã®RFC(7540,7541)ãŒç„¡äº‹ç™ºè¡Œã•ã‚Œã¾ã—ãŸã€‚2年余りHTTP/2ã®æ¨™æº–化活動ã«å‚åŠ ã—ã¦ããŸã®ã§ã™ãŒã€ã‚‚ã†ã™ã£ã‹ã‚Šæ˜”ã®äº‹ã®ã‚ˆã†ãªæ„Ÿã˜ãŒã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ 今日ã€Scutumã®é–‹ç™ºã‚’ã•ã‚Œã¦ã„る金床ã•ã‚“ã®ã€ŒHTTP/2ã®RFCã‚’èªã‚“ã 感想ã€ã®ã‚¨ãƒ³ãƒˆãƒªãƒ¼ãŒå…¬é–‹ã•ã‚Œã€èªã¾ã›ã¦é ‚ãã¾ã—ãŸã€‚今回åˆã‚ã¦HTTP/2ã®ä»•æ§˜æ›¸ã‚’èªã¾ã‚ŒãŸæ„Ÿæƒ³ã¨ã„ã†ã“ã¨ã§ã€é•·ãã‹ã‹ã‚ã£ã¦ããŸç«‹å ´ã‹ã‚‰è¦‹ã‚‹ã¨éžå¸¸ã«æ–°é®®ãªå†…容ã§ã—ãŸã€‚ 実ã¯ã€ŒHTTP/2ãŒæµè¡Œã‚‰ãªã„ã€ã¨ã„ã†æŒ‡æ‘˜ã¯ã€ï¼‘å¹´åŠã»ã©å‰ã«ç§ã‚‚åŒã˜ã“ã¨ã‚’書ã„ã¦ã„ã¾ã—ãŸã€‚ HTTP/2.0ãŒã‚‚ãŸã‚‰ã™ï¿½Webサービスã®é€²åŒ–(後åŠï¼‰ ã¾ãŸã€å¶ç„¶ãªã®ã‹ã‚ã‹ã‚Šã¾ã›ã‚“ãŒã€åŒã˜ Proxyè£½å“ vanish varnish *1 ã®é–‹
POST をリダイレクトã™ã‚‹ã¨ GET ã«ãªã‚‹ä»¶ã«ã¤ã„ã¦èª¿ã¹ãŸ - ç†ç³»å¦ç”Ÿæ—¥è¨˜
ã¨ã‚る事情ã«ã‚ˆã‚Šã€POST リクエストをリダイレクトã•ã›ã‚‹å¿…è¦ãŒç”Ÿã˜ã¾ã—ãŸã€‚å˜ç´”ã«ãƒªãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ¬ã‚¯ãƒˆã•ã›ã¦ã¿ãŸã¨ã“ã‚ã€ãƒªãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ¬ã‚¯ãƒˆã¯ã•ã‚Œã‚‹ã‚‚ã®ã®ã€POST リクエストã«ä»˜ä¸Žã—ã¦ã„㟠HTTP_BODY ãŒå–å¾—ã§ãã¾ã›ã‚“。ã©ã†ã‚‚ã€ãƒªãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ¬ã‚¯ãƒˆæ™‚ã« GET ã«å¤‰æ›´ã•ã‚Œã¦ã„ã‚‹ã¿ãŸã„ã§ã™ã€‚ ã¼ãã¯æ€’ã‚Šã«éœ‡ãˆãŸã‚‚ã®ã®ã€RFC çš„ã«ã¯ã©ã†æŒ¯ã‚‹èˆžã†ã¹ããªã‚“ã ã€å„種ブラウザã®æŒ¯èˆžã„ã¯ã©ã†ãªã£ã¦ã„ã‚‹ã‚“ã ã€ã¨ã„ã†ã“ã¨ãŒæ°—ã«ãªã£ãŸã®ã§ã¾ã¨ã‚ã¦ã¿ã¾ã—ãŸã€‚内容ã¨ã—ã¦ã¯ã€ -POSTリクエストをリダイレクトã™ã‚‹ã¨GETã•ã‚Œã‚‹ï¼ŸPOSTã•ã‚Œã‚‹? - ã¯ã“ã¹ã«ã£ã ♨ ã®äºŒç•ªç…Žã˜ã«ãªã‚Šã¾ã™ã€‚ å…ˆã«çµæžœã‚’示ã—ã¦ãŠãã¨ã€ä»¥ä¸‹ã®ã¨ãŠã‚Šã§ã—ãŸã€‚ Status Code 期待動作 Firefox (25.0.1) Safari(7.0) Chrome (31.0) 301 POST GET GET GET 302 POST GET GE
HTTP Authentication - WWW-Authenticate header - multiple realms
Does anyone have any experience of supporting multiple realms in HTTP Authentication? The Microsoft website states: Each authenticate response header contains an available authentication scheme and a realm. If multiple authentication schemes are supported, the server returns multiple authenticate response headers. The realm value is case-sensitive and defines a protection space on the proxy or ser
オリジン間リソース共有 (CORS) - HTTP | MDN
HTTP ガイド HTTP ã®æ¦‚è¦ å…¸åž‹çš„ãª HTTP セッション HTTP メッセージ MIME タイプ（IANA メディア種別） HTTP ã®åœ§ç¸® HTTP ã‚ャッシュ HTTP èªè¨¼ HTTP Cookie ã®ä½¿ç”¨ HTTP ã®ãƒªãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ¬ã‚¯ãƒˆ HTTP æ¡ä»¶ä»˜ãリクエスト HTTP 範囲リクエスト コンテンツãƒã‚´ã‚·ã‚¨ãƒ¼ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³ HTTP/1.x ã®ã‚³ãƒã‚¯ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³ç®¡ç† HTTP ã®é€²åŒ– プãƒãƒˆã‚³ãƒ«ã®ã‚¢ãƒƒãƒ—グレードã®ä»•çµ„㿠プãƒã‚シサーãƒãƒ¼ã¨ãƒˆãƒ³ãƒãƒªãƒ³ã‚° HTTP クライアントヒント HTTP ã‚»ã‚ュリティ サイトã®å®‰å…¨åŒ– HTTP Observatory Permissions Policy コンテンツセã‚ュリティãƒãƒªã‚·ãƒ¼ (CSP) オリジン間リソース共有 (CORS) Cross-Origin Resource Policy (CORP) Strict-Transport-Securit
リリースã€éšœå®³æƒ…å ±ãªã©ã®ã‚µãƒ¼ãƒ“スã®ãŠçŸ¥ã‚‰ã›
最新ã®äººæ°—エントリーã®é…ä¿¡
j次ã®ãƒ–ックマーク
kå‰ã®ãƒ–ックマーク
lã‚ã¨ã§èªã‚€
eコメント一覧を開ã
oページを開ã
RFC 7240: Prefer Header for HTTP
How to reply with 200 from Nginx, without serving a file?
Should an HTTP API always return a body?
What is Domain Sharding?
「HTTP/2ã€åˆ¶å®šã®èƒŒæ™¯ã‚„「HTTP/1ã€ã¨ã®é•ã„ã€Akamaiã®ãƒžãƒ¼ã‚¯ãƒ»ãƒŽãƒƒãƒ†ã‚£ãƒ³ã‚¬ãƒ æ°ãŒèª¬æ˜Žã€€
Example of a minimal request response cycle for WebDAV?
{{#tags}}- {{label}}
{{/tags}}