On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > 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. In the case of editing a negotiated resource, CL might be very useful, so ruling out CL entirely because a particular point of 14.14 and the lack of implementation of it in 99% of the browsers is not wanted. Roy's approach to remove only the part setting the base of the document would work (although it would make conformant brosers and sites non-conformant, but that's another story). > 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 > Henrik > -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 15:35:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT