W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1995

Re: Getting full URI to the server

From: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 08:55:27 -0600
Message-Id: <ab63cffb01021004d6f5@[]>
To: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: Mike Cowlishaw <mfc@vnet.ibm.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 8:04 AM 2/12/95, Marc VanHeyningen wrote:
>I wouldn't quite agree there.  Other site-level conventions
>(e.g. /robots.txt, /site.idx, a file for site-level description
>information if one is made, etc.) could also benefit from this header.
>It also could permit a smoother migration of name; for example, if you
>need to change the name of your server, this header could permit the
>old and new names to be mapped together briefly but permit logging of
>which Referer: URLs are still pointing to the old name.
>That said, I'm inclined to agree that the benefits are not terribly

Time for $.02 from the peanut gallery. The benefits are not terribly
overwhelming, it serves only a few specific purposes, and it involves the
addition of a single request header. Given that this has been discussed and
requested and discussed again for the past 6 months, why not mollify the
people who want this feature and simply add it to the spec?

Rather than continuing to thrash this around repeatedly in e-mail, just
write the paragraph about it in the standard and let the standards process
finish off the discussion. One of the complaints many have about HTML and
HTTP is that the standards process is creeping at a snail's pace, forcing
commercial developers to strike out on their own when the standards
"keepers" ignore or discard their requests for feature incorporation into
the DRAFT standards.

In the grand scheme of things, this feature requires NO modifications to
existing servers and about a 2 line modification to clients that want to be
compliant. Let's stop talking about it and put a strawman in the standard!
If it turns out to be a bad idea, we can delete it. That's been done
before. In the meantime, it'll stop complaints that the standards process
isn't responsive and accomodate the people who want this feature.

Chuck Shotton
cshotton@biap.com                                  http://www.biap.com/
cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu                           "I am NOT here."
Received on Sunday, 12 February 1995 06:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:13 UTC