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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location [#154]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:08:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACDBA08.2080702@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 08/10/2009, at 12:31 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> I haven't seen any discussion of this, but I believe the general 
>>> feeling is to drop the base-setting semantics of Content-Location in 
>>> HTTP.
>>> Any other thoughts? Otherwise we'll go in that direction.
>>
>> +1, but we need to consider the details.
>>
>> Currently, we have
>>
>> "The value of Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity."
>>
>> Do we drop this (potentially breaking currently conforming 
>> implementations), or do we make it optional?
> 
> Personally, I'd say the former; we've found cases where it can be 
> harmful, it isn't widely implemented, and making it optional will lead 
> to yet more interoperability problems. We are chartered to improve 
> interop, and are explicitly allowed to change things when this is the case.
> 
>> In both case, we'll also have to record this as a normative change in 
>> the Changes section.
> 
> Yes.

OK, change applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/712> (which has 
broken checkin comment, sorry for that).

I note that in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154>, 
we have:

> Note that this differs from the MIME header of same name. 

Is this something that requires spec text, or was that just a reminder 
that HTTP and MIME are allowed to differ with respect to this?

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 10:08:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:12 GMT