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

Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:54:44 -0800
Message-Id: <349E29B8-721B-4F9B-BC1B-40327056615E@gbiv.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, 'Lisa Dusseault' <ldusseault@commerce.net>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>

On Jan 22, 2009, at 3:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Entirely agreeing with your points, I'm confused on one point...
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> 5) The author seems to be unaware that URL is a deprecated term
>> defined in RFC 3986. The field values would be better defined
>> in terms on the standard URI grammar and terminology.
>
> When does RFC 3986 become binding on HTTP/1.1?  I was presuming that
> doesn't happen until the next RFC, although the author should take
> note of the discrepancy.

It is already binding (to the extent RFCs are binding on anyone).
STD 66/RFC 3986 defines how software making use of the Internet
correctly send/receive/parse URIs.  It automatically applies to
any protocols that make use of URIs as a protocol element, even
if the protocol spec was written long before 3986.

In any case, the term URL has been deprecated since RFC 2396
because it is effectively a synonym for URI and leads to all
sorts of useless arguments about the perceived limitations of
locators.  The HTML5 editor believes this allows him to redefine
URL within the exclusive context of HTML5, hence the continued
misuse of this term here.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 23:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:00 GMT