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

Re: Full-URI, again

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 06:18:09 -0800
To: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9503200618.aa12652@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> The last iteration of this discussion had Roy saying he didn't feel it was
> needed unless clients built it in first, and the host name was only needed
> for "vanity domains". A few people responded with arguments that knowing
> the full URI had other benefits, many of which I believe to be significant.
> Roy didn't respond to those (unless I missed his response in the archive),

Yes, you missed it.

> no one  objected to Chuck's statement that it was a simple addition and
> let's get on with it, but Full-URI didn't appear in the -00 rev of the
> spec.

Of course not.  What was under discussion was a feature to add to HTTP/1.1.
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/current/0089.html>
Note, however, that there was no consensus on the name or the contents
of the header.

I'd like to strongly encourage everyone to pore through the HTTP/1.0
specification FIRST and send in their comments (if any) before getting
into a discussion about 1.1 features.  Sometime this week, Henrik and I
will produce a draft for HTTP/1.1 which will be a basis for discussion
at the IETF meeting and (hopefully) will allow us to focus some of the
discussions on this mailing list.  It will include an Orig-URI: request
header.

 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                                       <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
                      <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Received on Monday, 20 March 1995 06:32:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:14 EDT