- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:52:55 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu, yarong@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jim Gettys: > > >> From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> > >(material elided...) > >> When I was rewriting the URI specification and arguing with the MHTML >> group, I came to the conclusion that Content-Base is not needed provided >> that Content-Location is implemented as specified. The reasoning was >> similar to what Dave Morris mentioned: the only person capable of knowing >> whether or not the embedded references in a document are relative to >> some other namespace is the document creator, and they are better-off >> making that distinction within the document. Granted, some formats may >> not have the equivalent of HTML's BASE, but I would argue that those >> formats are very unlikely to contain relative references. >> > >Do others agree with Roy's analysis? I agree that Content-Base is not really needed. >Is this true in the face of >negotiated resources, where Content-Location might be used to tell you >where the underlying version is found? As far as I can see, the removal of Content-Base will not break any proposed content negotiation scheme. > - Jim Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 1998 11:59:10 UTC