Re: 10.22 Host

• From: <jg@w3.org>
• Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 12:11:24 -0400
• To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
• Cc: swingard@spyglass.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9604301611.AA09773@zorch.w3.org>

>There are four cases:
>    1. relativeURL, no Host
>    2. relativeURL, Host
>    3. absoluteURL, no Host
>    4. absoluteURL, Host
>
>I'm trying to identify which require a 400 status code.  I believe only
>case 1 deserves it, which is what my suggested wording says.  However,
>the original words in 10.22 state that case 3 is also an error.  I
>don't think it should be.

Yes, and it is intended that it be an error.  The sense of the group
was that while it was in theory overkill to always require host,
it was too likely that implementers would get it wrong.  And a single,
widespread popular client might make the attempt to deal with the
host problem moot.  

So the intent is to always require host in 1.1, and require servers
to generate errors if they detect anyone not playing by the rules,
so that non-conforming clients get caught quickly.
This requirement might get eased in future versions, if we succeed
in overcoming the host problem.
			- Jim

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 1996 09:20:51 UTC