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

Re: domain-name?

From: Danyel Ceccaldi <dceccald@elaine.crcg.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:53:55 -0400
Message-Id: <9509212153.AA05485@hornbill.crcg.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: luotonen@netscape.com

> From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Thu Sep 21 15:37:05 1995
> From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
> Subject: Re: domain-name?
> To: fielding@beach.w3.org (Roy Fielding)
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
> Cc: montulli@mozilla.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> So we're going to waste terabytes of bandwidth over the coming months
> (and years) before we even have URNs that would need the Orig-URI
> header instead.  Just the Netscape home server alone would receive 10
> GB of useless data that it doesn't need nor want in one year.
Does it matter ? Why ?
Are there no other wasting sources more important to remove ?
How did you got that numbers ?

What about using a base element as recommended in RFC1808 ?

base-header = "Base" ":" "<URL:" absoluteURL ">"

If you have the possibility of providing some sort of a base-header,
you could at least specify the host, if the base is not already given
by the document.

I was wondering, I thought the base-header is inside the draft, but it isn't.


If a www-client wants to get the resource pointed to by http://www.foo.bar/any
he could send:

Request to the IP-number got by resolving the domain-name 'www.foo.bar':

GET /any HTTP/1.0
Base: <URL:http://www.foo.bar>
... (other headers)

Was it the intention of RFC that the base-header is used in the Http-protocol ?

Received on Thursday, 21 September 1995 13:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC