W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: MUST use Content-Base

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 17:48:08 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199801071648.RAA22160@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5107
Scott Lawrence:
>  In the course of our interoperability testing, we have found that
>  many browsers ignore the Content-Base header field (see
>  http://test11.agranat.com/basetest/).  The spec now reads:
>  ================
>    14.11 Content-Base
>    The Content-Base entity-header field may be used to specify the base URI
>    for resolving relative URLs within the entity.
>           Content-Base      = "Content-Base" ":" absoluteURI
>    If no Content-Base field is present, the base URI of an entity is
>    defined either by its Content-Location (if that Content-Location URI is
>    an absolute URI) or the URI used to initiate the request, in that order
>    of precedence. Note, however, that the base URI of the contents within
>    the entity-body may be redefined within that entity-body.
>  ================
>  To get the proposal in at the front, I would like to see this
>  changed to require that this header field be used if present:

To confuse matters even further, I interpret the above text as already
implying that the client MUST use the Content-Base header if present,
and would maintain that all clients which do not are not compliant
with the text of the spec.

However, I would not mind if Content-Base is deleted.
Content-Location can be used to do the same thing anyway.

Did you ever test if clients do use the Content-Location header to
resolve relative URLs in the entity if this header is present? 

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 08:53:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC