[ollien]

I don't think it's an abuse, RFC9110 defines 414 as a response for "refusing to service the request because the target URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret". Since adding a query string involves only adding characters, this seems fine; there's no stipulation as far as I can tell that all pages a server hosts must adhere to the same length. I'd be curious if any well-known clients interpret it that way though, and make caching decisions based on it. As far as I know, they shouldn't.

Obviously it's against the spirit of the thing, but I don't think it's wrong per-se.

[lucketone]

If the goal is to be misleading, but technically correct, it hits the bullseye

[ollien]

When the goal is "the funniest way", I think that's a hit :)

[chrismorgan]

I reckon it is still an abuse. I am willing to interpret longer target URIs… so long as they don’t contain a question mark. /no-query-strings is longer than /?.

[zymhan]

The standard doesn't say that you must accept all URIs up to a certain length. You're allowed to decide, based on context, what is "too long".

That is to say, you're allowed to have a double standard. And I love this sort of stuff, thanks for sharing.