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

Re: MUST use Content-Base

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:58:36 -0800 (PST)
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: jg@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980114144853.9193I-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5183

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> in HTML documents.  I disgree that if retained in the HTTP/1.1
> Draft Standard support for it by clients should be considered optional,
> but have no strong opinion on whether it should be retained or deleted.
> If deleted, this should not be with the intention of later reviving
> it with a change in rules such that it takes precedence over an actual
> BASE element in the entity-body.

I don't think we need to decide at this point in time if a revival
changes the semantics or offers the server control over precedence.

That said, it has finally sunk into my thick skull that there is a
semantic difference between Content-location and <base>/Content-base.

The origin for relative URL interpretation is acquired from
Content-location by parsing off the 'file name piece' where as the origin
for <base> is explicit.  The <base>/content-base allows an application
to utilize a relative base for the whole application and to use
relative URL references within the document without consideration of where
a particular page appears within the structure.  Content-location is
an alternative to the request URL and requires that all links within
pages be written with full knowledge of their own context.

I think Content-base should be removed from the specification but I 
did want to note that use of Content-location really isn't equivalent.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 1998 15:07:33 UTC

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