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

Re: domain-name?

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199509221608.JAA05301@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I also think defining Orig-URI in a way that %% in the value string
means the URL in the request is the best solution.  It provides the
needed domain name, it is short in most situations, and it doesn't cut
off the URN possibilities on the grounds that they are not yet
widespread.  Things spread quickly these days, after all.
			Regards,
				Ted Hardie
				NAIC

			

> 
> I think Dave Morris's compromise, to define Orig-URI in a way that %%
> in the value string means "the URL in the request", nicely shortens the
> header's length.  I vote for that.
> 
> I think Orig-URI should be required in HTTP/1.1, optional in HTTP/1.0.
> That way a server would know that an HTTP/1.0 request that lacks
> Orig-URI is potentially ambiguous w.r.t. request domain name.  An
> HTTP/1.1 request would always carry enough information to differentiate
> request domain names.
> 
> Dave Kristol
> 
Received on Friday, 22 September 1995 09:05:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:32 EDT