W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

RE: MUST use Content-Base

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:06:11 -0500 (EST)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980112110054.24532A-100000@alice.agranat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5140

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> I think I read from the discussion that people see a (limited) need for the
> feature, so maybe the right thing is to use a SHOULD and then include a
> note like this:
> 	Note: Many applications based on RFC 2068 or
> 	previous versions of HTTP ignore the content-base
> 	header field when parsing relative URIs in
> 	documents.

Some note of that sort should certainly be included, but I still think
that this needs to be a MUST or be omitted.  Granted, all implementations
earlier than 2068 and some (including important ones) based on 2068 will
not do this.  The point is that it is a good thing (IMHO) to have in the
protocol in the future and if we make it a must then the day will come
when it can be assumed to work more or less universally; if we do not make
it a MUST then that day will not come, and the protocol feature is
useless.  I was most carefull in my original post - this should either be
a MUST or it should be removed altogether; I don't think that compromise
is helpfull here.
Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 08:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:29 UTC