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

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

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:48:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0910140838050.4760@wnl.j3.bet>
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, 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).

Well, it's the same issue really, this time due only to bad client side 
support of CL that led to issue with conneg+CL when one client happens to 
support CL.

> 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."

Looks good.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 12:48:15 GMT

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