Paul Hoffman writes in <v0213050aac9b000c2497@[165.227.40.34]>: >I agree here. We got into the state of needing "HOST" because early HTTP >assumed one one host per machine, which turned out not to be the case. I >think it is short-sighted to not include (or at least allow and encourage) >HOST to include all the know information about the target connection, >namely the host name and the intended port. Of course, any HOST without a >port number should be assumed to default to 80. I agree. We already know the protocol (http) and the "absolute relative :)" (/...) or relative URL; what we are missing is the hostname and port. ====================================================================== Mark Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, INReceived on Friday, 6 October 1995 11:49:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC