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: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:42:56 -0800
Message-Id: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0113C605@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'jg@pa.dec.com'" <jg@pa.dec.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Actually we don't support ANY mechanism which defines base information
outside the scope of the document and it is unlikely that we ever will. It
screws up the protocol stack (as if http-equiv wasn't bad enough) and we
think it is just confusing and unnecessary.

Note that we don't explicitly define the require-uri as the default base,
rather we allow for the concept of references relative to "current
location", whatever that may be. In the case of a net resource, the current
location is its URI.

			Yaron



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jg@pa.dec.com [SMTP:jg@pa.dec.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 14, 1998 11:23 AM
> To:	Roy T. Fielding
> Cc:	Yaron Goland; http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: MUST use Content-Base
> 
> 
> >  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?  Is this true in the face of
> negotiated resources, where Content-Location might be used to tell you
> where the underlying version is found? 
> 
> The minimalist in me says if we don't actually need a mechanism, or a
> different 
> mechanism we do need can be used to solve a problem, we shouldn't have
> it...
> 
> And we haven't heard other opinions (e.g. lynx, etc....).  I'd like to
> hear
> from others who've formed opinions.
> 				- Jim
> --
> Jim Gettys
> Industry Standards and Consortia
> Digital Equipment Corporation
> Visting Scientist, World Wide Web Consortium, M.I.T.
> http://www.w3.org/People/Gettys/
> jg@w3.org, jg@pa.dec.com
Received on Thursday, 15 January 1998 10:45:03 EST

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