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

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Wasn't there also some aspect whereby a negotiated resource would make 
> the links relative to the C-L URL, thereby messing things up?
> ...

Ah, that part.

So the issue is: the C-L *does* set the base URI, it may break relative 
links when original URI and CL-URI use different paths (well, unless the 
format allows setting the base URI in-line as well, for instance in HTML 
using the <base> element).

So how about changing:

"Remove base URI setting semantics for Content-Location due to poor 
implementation support."

to

"Remove base URI setting semantics for Content-Location due to poor 
implementation support, which was caused by too many broken servers 
emitting bogus Content-Location headers, and also the potentially 
undesirable effect of potentially breaking relative links in 
content-negotiated resources."

?

BR, Julian