- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> Ok I've reviewed the 1.1 draft, If I remember correctly, > >>we agreed to make host be FQDN. > > > >Yup. > > > >>Did we agree on any special cases which need to be included in the > >>draft? > > > >No, we agreed that there were no special cases. > > Why? There is currently no need for host to be an FQDN, for either > the Host field-value or a full-URL. Please explain. I agree with Roy ... we recently had a new rehash of the question and it was/is quite clear that is is unreasonable to expect a client to fabricate a FQDN for the host field if it wasn't in the URL. The whole purpose of the Host: field is satisified if the field is simply filled in with the host:port portion of the URL. There are many (orders of magnitude) more cases where a client would find it impossible to create a FQDN than the obscure configuration where a client can use a partial name to locate the server BUT the server can't use that partial name to properly identify a virtual document root. Dave Morris
Received on Saturday, 10 May 1997 09:57:36 UTC