- From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 13:45:00 PDT
- To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Paul Hoffman writes in <v0213050aac9b000c2497@[165.227.40.34]>: >I agree here. We got into the state of needing "HOST" because early HTTP >assumed one one host per machine, which turned out not to be the case. I >think it is short-sighted to not include (or at least allow and encourage) >HOST to include all the know information about the target connection, >namely the host name and the intended port. Of course, any HOST without a >port number should be assumed to default to 80. I agree. We already know the protocol (http) and the "absolute relative :)" (/...) or relative URL; what we are missing is the hostname and port. ====================================================================== Mark Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN
Received on Friday, 6 October 1995 11:49:45 UTC