Re: Full-URI, again

> The last iteration of this discussion had Roy saying he didn't feel it was
> needed unless clients built it in first, and the host name was only needed
> for "vanity domains". A few people responded with arguments that knowing
> the full URI had other benefits, many of which I believe to be significant.
> Roy didn't respond to those (unless I missed his response in the archive),

Yes, you missed it.

> no one  objected to Chuck's statement that it was a simple addition and
> let's get on with it, but Full-URI didn't appear in the -00 rev of the
> spec.

Of course not.  What was under discussion was a feature to add to HTTP/1.1.
Note, however, that there was no consensus on the name or the contents
of the header.

I'd like to strongly encourage everyone to pore through the HTTP/1.0
specification FIRST and send in their comments (if any) before getting
into a discussion about 1.1 features.  Sometime this week, Henrik and I
will produce a draft for HTTP/1.1 which will be a basis for discussion
at the IETF meeting and (hopefully) will allow us to focus some of the
discussions on this mailing list.  It will include an Orig-URI: request

 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA

Received on Monday, 20 March 1995 06:32:48 UTC