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

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