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

Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:12:10 +1000
Cc: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EF488330-D3F4-4859-8F25-2025D010CA92@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Since we're going on this tangent -

Is this (proxying other URI schemes through HTTP) worth making a little more explicit? The question of whether non-HTTP URI schemes are allowed in HTTP comes up from time to time. Other issues (e.g., what to do with the Host header) come up as well.


On 15/05/2010, at 7:34 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On May 14, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>> fre 2010-05-14 klockan 12:36 -0700 skrev Roy T. Fielding:
>>> All schemes are dereferenceable, including urn, info, and tag.
>> Are they?
> Yes.  Any scheme can be proxied through HTTP, even when it
> might be unwise to do so.
>> Quote from the tag scheme specification RFC4151:
>>       There is no authoritative resolution mechanism for tags.  Unlike
>>       most other URIs, tags can only be used as identifiers, and are
>>       not designed to support resolution.  If authoritative resolution
>>       is a desired feature, a different URI scheme should be used.
>> Some of the  URN name spaces have similar issues.
> That doesn't prevent anyone from introducing a resolution, deploying
> it, and then configuring their web tools to dereference it.
> There is a long history of URN-like specifications living in some
> fantasy land that has no correspondence with Web technology.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 06:12:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC