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

Re: Decision about Host?

From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 13:45:00 PDT
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <30759591@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>

Paul Hoffman writes in <v0213050aac9b000c2497@[165.227.40.34]>:
>I agree here. We got into the state of needing "HOST" because early HTTP
>assumed one one host per machine, which turned out not to be the case. I
>think it is short-sighted to not include (or at least allow and encourage)
>HOST to include all the know information about the target connection,
>namely the host name and the intended port. Of course, any HOST without a
>port number should be assumed to default to 80.
I agree.  We already know the protocol (http) and the "absolute relative :)" 
(/...) or relative URL; what we are missing is the hostname and port.
======================================================================
Mark Fisher                            Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN
Received on Friday, 6 October 1995 11:49:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:33 EDT