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: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:17:40 +1300
Message-Id: <9787E4D1-662D-4BC8-858C-48FC6D70DEE2@qbik.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
We see ftp:// all the time

As for using a character or 2 for the method. Why? What is wrong with numbers?

1 = GET
2 = HEAD
3 = POST
etc. 


Sent from my iPad

On 2/02/2013, at 6:26, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:

> 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 20:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 20:18:09 GMT