W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Request for feedback on HTTP Location header syntax + semantics, Re: Issues 43 and 185, was: Issue 43 (combining fragments)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:45:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4B992C40.3090506@gmx.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 11.03.2010 18:35, Nathan wrote:
> ...
>>> I have no idea what this has to do with the request-target. Could you please
>>> elaborate?
>
> if a server can "redirect" from a primary resource to a secondary
> resource, then this indicates that the server (or mappings) have
> knowledge of both primary and secondary resources. Why then can't the
> server receive requests for secondary resources in the request target so
> that it can accurately map between secondary resources. for example say
> that:
>   http://www.advogato.org/person/timbl/foaf.rdf#me
> 301 Moved Permanently
> Location: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i
> ...

I can't answer that. There may have been good reasons for this when the 
web was designed. Something for people like Tim, Larry, or Roy to answer.

 From the point of view of the HTTPbis WG we're just clarifying things 
in HTTP/1.1; we don't add anything new. Fragment identifiers *are* in 
use (and so are relative references), that's why we're having this 
discussion.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:17 GMT