W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: NUDGE: Our piece on Host: and URLs (Fwd)

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 07:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970512065133.5648F-100000@ns.viet.net>
On Sun, 11 May 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >> The answer to your problem is the same I gave last time this question was
> >> discussed: if you don't want ambiguous results, don't use ambiguous URLs.
> >> 
> >What if we create another reponse code, which means
> >40X "Request Ambiguous" ie please be more specific..
> 
> What would that gain?  The application can't be any less ambiguous.
> The server should be capable of either
> 
>    1) using the URL path info to disambiguate the request and
>       return a redirect
> or
>    2) return a default page that lists the virtual hosts and explains
>       to the user that they need to choose one.
> 
> The first is 301; the second is 300

THe second could be *REALLY* evil on servers with hundreds of hosts, but
never-the-less seems the best option (comparable to the Apache error catch
for imagemap calls without coordinates). Does a generic 300 with body
break on any of the deployed Host: supporting browsers (NS2.0+,
MSIE3.0+, Lynx 2.6+, WebTV, AOL 3.0, or the latest Cyberdog)?

-- 
Benjamin Franz
Received on Monday, 12 May 1997 07:09:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:41 EDT