Who can express URL syntax with BNF

Gunter <hille@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.d400.de>

Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
Next message: M.J.Cox@bradford.ac.uk: "Status Information - summary?"
Previous message: Rex di Bona: "Re: What a machine for www?"
Reply: Lou Montulli: "Re: Who can express URL syntax with BNF"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:48:31 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <447*/S=hille/OU=rz/OU=informatik/PRMD=uni-hamburg/ADMD=d400/C=de/@MHS>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: hille@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.d400.de
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Gunter <hille@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.d400.de>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Who can express URL syntax with BNF
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

No, I did not read the www-talk archive. But the parser of my HTTP server
for Windows will be an ugly piece of code, if it cannot decide what to do:

GET /1234?Name=foo&Age=21 HTTP/1.0     seems to be a form, handled specially
GET /1234?Name=foo HTTP/1.0            is a form or a textsearch
GET /1234?Name+foo HTTP/1.0            is a textsearch
GET /1234?Name%20foo HTTP/1.0          is a textsearch as well?
GET /1234?777,888 HTTP/1.0             is a specejump (or textsearch?)

So, how to decide whether to process forms, do a textsearch or do a spacejump.

HTTP protocol states that spacejump and textsearch methods are done via GET.
Why don't we use SPACEJUMP or TEXTSEARCH to disambiguate our syntax?

Gunter