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, 14 Jan 1998 20:52:55 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199801141952.UAA11581@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu, yarong@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5175
Jim Gettys:
>>  From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
>(material elided...)
>>  When I was rewriting the URI specification and arguing with the MHTML
>>  group, I came to the conclusion that Content-Base is not needed provided
>>  that Content-Location is implemented as specified.  The reasoning was
>>  similar to what Dave Morris mentioned: the only person capable of knowing
>>  whether or not the embedded references in a document are relative to
>>  some other namespace is the document creator, and they are better-off
>>  making that distinction within the document.  Granted, some formats may
>>  not have the equivalent of HTML's BASE, but I would argue that those
>>  formats are very unlikely to contain relative references.
>Do others agree with Roy's analysis?  

I agree that Content-Base is not really needed.

>Is this true in the face of
>negotiated resources, where Content-Location might be used to tell you
>where the underlying version is found?

As far as I can see, the removal of Content-Base will not break any
proposed content negotiation scheme.

>				- Jim

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 1998 11:59:10 UTC

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