W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: URI handling for Location

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:18:18 +1000
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F278134F-C2F9-41B2-A9FA-77336AA8A6A8@mnot.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Anne et al,

As discussed at the bar bof/informal liaison in SF, this seems to be  
more of a URI issue; i.e., HTML and browser vendors need a named  
construct ("dirty URI", "hypertext reference", etc.) for what goes  
into the process, but from an HTTP perspective, this isn't evident.

AIUI the follow-up will happen on the URI mailing list.

Cheers,


On 30/03/2009, at 11:25 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The definition of the Location header differs in various ways of how  
> at least Web browsers need to deal with them to interoperate with  
> content on the Web:
>
> 1. Need to handle relative URIs.
> 2. Need to handle with spaces and other invalid URI characters in  
> the same way as done by e.g. HTML and CSS. (Percent-encode them  
> rather than treat it as error.)
>
> I suspect that any other tool that wants to deal with content on the  
> Web would have similar issues. There's some discussion here  
> including two sites this effects:
>
>  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090323#l-152
>
> (I suspect that every feature that takes a URI is similarly  
> affected, but I have not toyed with those.)
>
> (There was also a related issue for Location regarding how to handle  
> it when there's more than one such header, but I believe that was  
> raised already.)
>
>
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 04:18:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT