Hacker News Reader

Comment by geoah | Hacker News Reader

Was thinking the same. ?v=4#sha111 for defining the version and using fragment for hash verification seemed like a more interesting approach.

View on HN

Fragments are useless outside a browser and lead to problems. A lot of command line and library HTTP agents ignore the fragment part of an URL, so you often might encounter everything after # stripped. Thus forcing you to invent yet another HTTP client/agent/URL library in a ton of languages.

Yes, this is just how fragments work; they're supposed to be stripped before sending the request to the server. This is exactly why, in the context of the thread, the fragment is the correct place to put the TSON hash parameter.

It is fine to have the fragment stripped before sending it to the server. What I meant was that client-side parsing of TSON in many languages will be hindered by the client-side libraries stripping the fragment far too early. Because you will need that fragment part for validation, but if your parse_url-function dismisses the fragment because nobody ever needs it...

I did a cursory look through a number of major languages and libraries*, and as far as I can tell, they all retain and provide access to the fragment by default. Maybe some of them didn't in the past, or the APIs that I found superseded older ones that didn't, but at least in the present day, this doesn't seem to be an issue.

* = Including urllib.parse (Python), url_parse (PHP), java.net.URI (Java), System.Uri (.NET), net/url.URL (Go), curl_url_get (libcurl), URL (JavaScript, which calls it the "hash"), url::Url (Rust), Boost.URL (C++)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com