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

RE: MUST use Content-Base

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:42:47 -0800
Message-Id: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0E72A1@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
The only way this thing can be a must is if we change the protocol number.
[Insert standard Henrik lecture here =)]

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Scott Lawrence [SMTP:lawrence@agranat.com]
> Sent:	Monday, January 12, 1998 8:06 AM
> To:	Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc:	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	RE: MUST use Content-Base
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> > I think I read from the discussion that people see a (limited) need for
> the
> > feature, so maybe the right thing is to use a SHOULD and then include a
> > note like this:
> > 
> > 	Note: Many applications based on RFC 2068 or
> > 	previous versions of HTTP ignore the content-base
> > 	header field when parsing relative URIs in
> > 	documents.
> 
> Some note of that sort should certainly be included, but I still think
> that this needs to be a MUST or be omitted.  Granted, all implementations
> earlier than 2068 and some (including important ones) based on 2068 will
> not do this.  The point is that it is a good thing (IMHO) to have in the
> protocol in the future and if we make it a must then the day will come
> when it can be assumed to work more or less universally; if we do not make
> it a MUST then that day will not come, and the protocol feature is
> useless.  I was most carefull in my original post - this should either be
> a MUST or it should be removed altogether; I don't think that compromise
> is helpfull here.
> 
Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 23:48:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:10 EDT