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

Re: Rev81: COMMENT: 5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:47:02 PDT
To: sjk@amazon.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jun3.114711pdt.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/745
We're at that stage of review where questions like this:

> If a client has determined that a given server speaks HTTP 1.1, should
> it really be considered illegal to omit the HOST header if an absolute
> URI is included in the request?

should be ignored. What you need to say if you expect action is
stronger than a question, you'll need to say why what the spec says
SHOULDN'T be accepted.

> And what happens to a 1.0 server when it gets an absoluteURI from a
> 1.1 client in the request?  Isn't it the case that 1.0 servers (except
> for proxies) expect request URIs without the scheme, host, or port?

It should be clear from the spec that 1.1 clients won't send
absoluteURIs to 1.0 servers.

- Larry
Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 11:50:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC