![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It would seem that there might be a size limit on the query string. If there is, what is it? If there is or is not a limit it should be stated in this article. I, however, do not have this knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.155.9 ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 19 June 2005
I came here hoping to find something more definitive about the use of + for space. It does seem to be an exception (as the article does already state) to the generic URI rules of RFC 3986. But I'm wishing for something more definitive about the actual scope of the exception (an RFC citation would be ideal). A colleague of mine was just bitten by this exact issue (a mailto: URI can have a portion set off by ? and resembling a query string, but is defined by RFC 2368 with no special meaning for +, so %20 has to be used) which is what started me looking. So does the + exception apply only to particular schemes, such as http or https? Is there an RFC that says so? The only one I have found is RFC 1630, but that's worded more like an early proposal for a generic syntax where + would apply in any scheme (and therefore would seem to conflict with RFC 3986 and the later scheme-specific RFCs). Also, 1630 isn't mentioned at all in rfc-editor's set of obsoletes and updates related to RFC 1738, 3986, etc. which makes it hard to see exactly where 1630 does (or doesn't) fit in the scheme of things. I hoped to find a later RFC that cites it and restates the +-for-space rule with a specific scope for where it applies, but I didn't (which needn't mean it doesn't exist). This turned out a lot more subtle than I expected, and if anybody actually knows the right RFCs to pin it down, it would be a good addition to the article. 128.210.4.214 ( talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.13.4.1 has the goods. The later RFCs say simply that "+" is a reserved character and should be encoded if encountered, and give no guidance about how it is to be interpreted. 99.241.46.234 ( talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I share Jidanni's concern, but need to be expand on it:
The current version of the Query_string#URL encoding section lacks a reference for the given query string rules. Would explicitly distinguishing between specification and convention be helpful here?
The current HTTP 1.1 URI Specification still references the Query String definition given in rfc3986.
The full grammar for this definition can be taken from Appendix A of the same spec and the core rules for ABNF Grammars in rfc3986:
query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" ) pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@" unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "=" HEXDIG = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
This grammar does not match the current textual description given in the URL encoding section:
In particular, encoding the query string uses the following rules:
The following rule description would match the specification and distinguish between spec and convention:
In particular, encoding the query string uses the following rules:
- The characters (
A
–Z
anda
–z
), (0
–9
) and/ ? : @ - . _ ~
are left as-is- All other ASCII characters are encoded as
%HH
hex representationThe following rules are also adhered to by convention:
- The use of
&
and=
to seperate parameters and key-value pairs as described for #Web forms is used for non-form parameters as well- SPACE can be encoded as '
+
' or "%20
" [2]- All non-ascii ASCII characters are encoded as
%HH
hex representation by first encoding as UTF-8 (or other specified encoding)
Of course, references would need to be added as required, and language improved. But would something like this be accepted by page maintainers?
Sam ( talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Odd, RFC 3986 says
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@" query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
so why isn't e.g., "@" mentioned as OK? Jidanni ( talk) 06:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Could it be that the authors' attention is not focused on the query string part of the RFC?
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Jidanni ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the primary use of the query string is to pass info to the server, there are also client-side uses. I am doing some work that involves reading and setting the query string in Javascript, accessed via "location.search", but because my expertise in this area is very limited, I don't feel qualified to add anything to the topic in Wikipedia. Hopefully someone with some expertise in the area can add a bit on the topic.
Query string is often used in databases and information retrieval system, and the meaning is a string that encodes a query that was entered by the user or was automatically constructed by some engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.198.98 ( talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article gives the following example of multi-valued keys:
field1=value1&field1=value2&field1=value3...
But does not touch upon the important fact that in this format PHP (and other platforms?) will only read the last assigned value for field1. In order to get PHP to recognize multi-value keys (i.e. arrays in a query string), the format should be as follows:
field1[]=value1&field1[]=value2&field1[]=value3...
My answer on http://stackoverflow.com/a/9547490/165673 deals with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykessler ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The article states "The equals sign may be omitted if the value is an empty string." but I could not find any infomation about this in http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#url-encoded-form-data
I am sure the article is correct but does anyone have a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambob ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
According to [1], semicolon separators are no longer allowed by the latest W3C recommendation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.69.114 ( talk) 08:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Too bad WP is not a discussion forum. I would then be able to suggest the following: why not use a question mark not only to introduce a query, but also to separate each assignment in the query? That reduces the characters that need to be escaped if they are to appear in an assignment by one, and makes parsing the query, when needed, easier. David Spector ( talk) 13:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)