W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

the Host: saga

From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:23:19 +0100
Message-Id: <199603261223.NAA05572@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
There's still something I don't understand in the whole Host: story.

First of all, it seems to me that there is a consensus about having the full
URL in HTTP/2.0, and Roy frowns upon dictating it in 1.1 because of the
longer deployment time. But what if people write in the specs that 
1.1 servers MUST recognize both form, and 1.1 clients SHOULD send full URL,
but MUST fall back to the Host: form in case of a 404 error sent by a
1.0 server? True, there is a bandwidth waste, but it should not be
relevant. And in this way, the transition to 2.0 will be smoother.

The second thing which puzzles me is the statement by Harald, namely
that the Host: solution

% - STILL loses the method information.

What's the advantage of having the method information? I cannot see 
the utility of having a http server which understands other methods - I'd
preder to leave them to other servers on other ports. Surely I forgot
something trivial: could someone please explain this to me?

ciao, .mau.
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 1996 04:25:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:49 EDT