- From: Jim Seidman <jim@spyglass.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 08:54:22 -0600
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes: >The problem is that in this case, the client not sending a host[name] >header also are the clients which only support one URL in a redirection >status code - or am I missing something? Sorry, my message must have been poorly phrased after a long Sunday at work. My intent was that as a migration strategy, redirection would occur if (and only if) a Hostname field was present and the client was retrieving the root document. For example: GET / HTTP/1.0 Hostname: megacorp.com HTTP/1.0 302 Moved Temporarily URI: <http://megacorp.com/megacorp/index.htm> But when the client requested any other URI, the server could ignore the Hostname field: GET /megacorp/index.htm Hostname: megacorp.com HTTP/1.0 200 OK ... A client which didn't support the Hostname field would never receive the 302 response, but would instead just get a document listing the different hosts for that address. (Of course this same strategy could be applied to a Original-URI or similar scheme.) As a transitional scheme, this is nice because all of the URIs for all of the hostnames, with the exception of the root document, would be unique. If someone told someone, "Hey, look at the great content at http://megacorp.com/megacorp/cool.htm" it wouldn't matter whether or not their browser supported the Hostname field, or even if it handled redirects properly. The URI would just work. -- Jim Seidman, Senior Software Engineer, Spyglass Inc.
Received on Monday, 13 February 1995 07:01:25 UTC