tor 2006-11-30 klockan 00:06 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > And, btw, would RoyF's suggested change > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0192.html>) > fix the problem for you? After some serious consideration on the implications I think this change should at most be done a note documenting that many user-agents ignore Content-Location, maybe angled as an HTTP/1.0 relic. Content-Location did not exists in HTTP/1.0, so any server wanting to support HTTP/1.0 clients can not rely on the user-agents understanding Content-Location for establishing the base URL. I think it's a good feature to keep, allowing very nice optimizations of the URL-namespace if used correctly for defining the base URL, and can already find very good use outside the browsing use case of HTTP. Just sad there is too many sites not sending correct headers making it hard to deploy in the browsers. The specifications as they are is pretty clear on this issue, even if it's not repeated all over the place. Quite unlike many other situations where implementations gets things wrong. Regards HenrikReceived on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 23:25:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:24 GMT