[julianlam]

> After I implemented that feature, a page from one of my favourite websites refused to load in the console... the third URL returns an HTTP 404 error page. The website uses the query string to determine which one of its several font collections to show.

Yes, let's unilaterally decide that query strings are bad because one website (ab)uses query strings to load different fonts.

It's the query strings that are the problem, not the website!

jfc.

Look, I'm against utm fragments as much as the next guy, but let's not throw away a perfectly good thing because tracking is evil.

[ergonaught]

Adding your own garbage to someone else's URLs is in fact the problem. Could they handle your garbage better? Sure. Is your garbage still a problem? Yes.

[SoftTalker]

Postel's law worked OK when people operated in good faith. But today the internet is full of abusers. Rejecting requests that aren't exactly what they should be is probably the best policy now.

[wtallis]

Postel's law is typically stated as "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others". It's unfortunately common for people to ignore the first half and hallucinate a third clause demanding that the recipient stay silent about the errors they receive.

[InsideOutSanta]

That website is not abusing query strings, though, its usage of query strings is perfectly cromulent. And tfa is not saying not to use query strings, but not to append random garbage to other people's URLs.

[jorams]

The website uses the feature for its intended purpose. Adding random trash to the query string of another website assuming it'll ignore it is in fact a bad idea, always, even if you can usually get away with it.

[LocalH]

The problem is adding query strings to the URLs of others. It's peak entitlement to think that's proper

[jedimastert]

> one website (ab)uses query strings

Really not abusing abusing query strings from a standards perspective, a 404 is not an improper response to an unexpected query string