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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:49:12 +1100
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <5C085433-AA0F-4CDA-80D0-B5DED4FEE97A@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Works for me.

On 14/10/2009, at 9:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 10:49:50 GMT

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