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

effective request URI/target URI, issues 221 & 222, was: Issues addressed by the -10 drafts

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:48:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4C49495E.9000909@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
On 22.07.2010 23:13, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> #196 Term for the requested resource's URI (editorial)*
>
> BTW, I have been trying to work with this phrase
> (the Effective Request URI) in my edits and have found it
> cumbersome and painful to read -- it tends to obscure
> whatever else is in the same sentence.
>
> Is there some reason we can't just call it the target URI?
> ...

I think we *can* call them "target URI". The reason we picked "Effective 
Request URI" is that we stole it from Jeff's STS spec, and I found the 
term made it clear that this is something that may need to be computed 
from various bits on the wire.

If we change it, of course STS should follow that change.

That being said, there are a few things left to do, no matter how we 
call it:

1) There's currently some overlap between 4.2 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#the.resource.identified.by.a.request> 
and 4.3 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#effective.request.uri>). 
Maybe that should be reduced?

2) Does eURI/target URI need to handle the case of HTTP/1.0 requests 
without Host header? 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/221>)

3) Is the current strategy of handling the request-target of "*" the 
right one? (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/222>)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 07:49:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT