- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 13:42:44 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> I was going to say that I found the Orig-URI-with-%% mechanism a > little more compelling this morning, and retract my support of Host:, > but I realized that I didn't know what a client would send to a proxy > under the Orig-URI proposal. Would they send: > > GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1 > Orig-URI: %% > > or > > GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1 > Orig-URI: http://host.dom/%% > > or would they leave it out completely and let the proxy handle it? > > In fact, even for the 'Host:' proposal, shouldn't clients just not > bother supplying Host to the proxy, and shouldn't the proxy generate > it? The value should be the original value in the URL before any translation whether it is the Orig-URI or the Host approach. Sending the URL through a proxy is a translation which should not reflect the value. That is: > GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1 > Orig-URI: http://host.dom/%% will do just fine. However I would prefer the following syntax of the Orig-URI: GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1 Orig-URI: <host>%%;<params>#<fragment> Orig-URI can then be passed through the proxy with no modifications. -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@w3.org> World-Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-356 545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 22 September 1995 10:45:34 UTC