Hi, all. On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Paul Hoffman wrote: > This is true for present software: the server software had to be > listening to a particular port in order to even get the "Host" > header, or anything for that matter. Actually, this may not be true even for present software -- consider a server running on a Unix system under inetd. A small worry I have is that a "Host" header may be relevant only for certain implementations of HTTP -- those using IP as an underlying transport mechanism. ("Port number" information, of course, restricts things even further.) I trust that the wording of the HTTP/1.1 specification will not make it impossible to implement the protocol elsewhere. Draft 03 of the HTTP/1.0 spec, section 1.2 paragraph 2, has a very nice statement of the transport-independence of HTTP; I'd like to see it stay that way. For versions of HTTP beyond 1.1, it seems to me that a better long-term solution might be to allow (or require) the "Request-URI" for a request to an origin server to be an "absoluteURI". (This would decouple HTTP from TCP/IP at the cost of tying it more tightly to URIs, I guess.) Cheers, Andrew. -- Andrew McRae <andrew_mcrae@harvard.edu>Received on Saturday, 7 October 1995 13:11:18 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:33 EDT