- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:41:48 +1100
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Wasn't there also some aspect whereby a negotiated resource would make the links relative to the C-L URL, thereby messing things up? On 14/10/2009, at 8:40 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> ... >>> Closing issue. Julian, at some point it would probably be good to >>> update the change note to reflect that this wasn't done just >>> because of poor implementation take-up; the reason behind that was >>> that using C-L for base caused problems with conneg and other >>> situations (IIRC). >>> ... >> >> I'll happily do that, if somebody could remind what these problems >> are/were... > > Well, the main issue is lack of implementation on client side, bad > CL headers sent by servers especially when servers are behind a > front-end. (like CL: http://10.1.2.80:8080/foo ), making it hard to > rely on in the general case. > > -- > Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. > > ~~Yves > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 09:42:23 UTC