W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

From: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:26:15 +0100
Message-ID: <510BFAB7.6010601@zinks.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 01.02.2013 16:56, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2013 1:50 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of
>>> trouble:
>>>   1) scheme of URI is always http(s)://.
>> Yes, it does make this assumption. It seems, rather safe to me. What other
>> schemes do we need to support?
> I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.  I've heard of other
> schemes used in production systems (in enterprises, granted, but so
> what, the same might be useful in the Internet).
>
> Nico

The scheme which comes to my mind is ftp. As far as I know this is 
supported by browsers and there are proxies translating between HTTP and 
FTP.
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 17:26:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 17:26:43 GMT