- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:57:40 +0100 (MET)
- To: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Beth Frank writes: > I need to give an answer to our browser implementors. > My understanding of the situation is: > > 1) In HTTP/1.1 HOST will be a required header field for > http: URI's. as I understood, for HTTP URLs. > 2) There is not portable way to easily guarantee that a > client (on all platforms) can get a fully qualified > domain name (fqdn) to place in HOST. Yes. > So, is it acceptable for the client to place whatever it > finds between the // and the first / in the HOST > field, with the understanding it may not be a acceptable, but not bad to have an option to ask the user for the fqdn when the client is unsure, that the given hostname is a fqdn. Not fully qualified host names come normally from user input, not from html links. The worst what can happen, that the host name will be resolved using a different resolver configuration. The user will be able to detect when the resolved host name isn't the same what he/she wanted. (With very high probability will result in a 404 error code.) A good server implementation can find, in which identity has any meaning the request-url, and can respond appropriately. > fqdn? If we can get a resolution on this soon, > the addition of the HOST header will make the next > Mosaic release. Fine. Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 10:09:27 UTC