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

Re: Assigned paths

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:42:43 -0700
To: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9706261047.aa18311@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3570
>Given that RFC 2169 "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN
>Resolution" and some caching recommendations from this working group
>have both cited specific path patterns, is it time to discuss something
>like "assigned paths", similar to assigned numbers?

The answer is that there are no special paths.  Both RFC 2169 and 2068
are wrong in that regard.

Using a contorted form of GET in order to do name resolution using
HTTP is a particularly bad idea.  All that is needed is a new method
(corresponding to the requested action) and send the full URI.
That's what proxied HTTP is all about.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 1997 10:54:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC