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

Re: HTTP 1.1 issue 17: 14.36 Referer

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:44:54 -0800
Message-Id: <9811112044.AA16162@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Ross Patterson <ROSSP@SS1.Reston.VMD.Sterling.COM>
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com

> From: "Ross Patterson" <ROSSP@SS1.Reston.VMD.Sterling.COM>
> Resent-From: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 10:46:42 EST
> To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: HTTP 1.1 issue 17: 14.36 Referer
> -----
> In section 14.36 "Referer", the statement
>    "If the field value is a partial URI, it SHOULD be interpreted
>    relative to the Request-URI."
> sounds more like a MUST than a SHOULD. An interoperability problem will
> result if two implementations interpret the referring URI differently.
> If the SHOULD is due to compatibility with earlier usage, that should be
> noted someplace.

A referer (sic) cannot be an interoperability problem in the first place,
as it is only provided to a server as a benefit (at some cost to the
client, I might add).

So it is hard to make a claim that this should be a MUST, as it isn't
mandantory information in the first place, and is just suggesting how
the server might interpret the graciously supplied partial URI in the
first place.

I don't see any need for a change.
			- Jim
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 20:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:23 UTC