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

Re: Getting full URI to the server

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 12:45:30 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <9502121845.AA25697@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Roy T. Fielding:
> 
> > Why not pass the full URI in a header line?  No change to the request
> > line necessary, and essentially upwards compatible.  Perhaps:
> > 
> >   Full-URI: http://foo.bar.org/index.html
> 
> This, or some variation upon it, has been discussed several times
> on the mailing list.  The most common response is that it includes
> too much extra information which would better appear in the Request-URI.
> Rather than discussing that again, let's simplify it a bit:
> 
>    Host: foo.bar.org
> 
> 
> The final question is: Does the additional functionality justify the cost
> and effort of including the Host header in the 1.1 standard, with the
> necessarily strong recommendation that it be included with all requests?
> 
> In my opinion, the answer to this last question is NO. 

I suspect that the ability to customize the default page based on 
hostname part of the URL is the single most requested feature from
server maintainers.  I doubt that a week goes by without a thread on
this subject in c.i.w.providers.  The practice of using multiple IP
addresses on a single host for the sole purpose of working around this
deficiency in the protocol is becoming increasingly common. 

Those who are critical of adding a new HTTP header just for "vanity
addresses" should keep in mind that the likely alternative is the
wasteful use of IP addresses just for vanity addresses.

John Franks
Received on Sunday, 12 February 1995 10:47:25 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:13 EDT