- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 96 14:24:08 EDT
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
jg@w3.org writes: > Actually, there is a more serious problem with Roy's rewrite of 5.1 and 5.2 > section in the current document (04a) that I missed when vetting his changes > (and mostly improvements). > > The requirement that all servers check that the host part is supplied > one way or the other only is required to servers supporting multiple > hosts in the current text. This requirement should be stronger; that > all servers check and generate errors if host information is not > present one way or the other. Otherwise we won't necessarily get the > desired effect of detecting buggy 1.1 clients until 1.1 servers are > deployed, likely much after when clients are shipped. This would > result in the scenario of none of the host requirements being > effective to solve the problem they were intended to solve. > > So Bullet #3 in 5.2 should be pulled out and put at the end of the first > paragraph of section 5.2. Agree. > > I think this fixes your problem as well. I don't think so. I'm saying that Bullet #1 should require that the host part of Request-URI be a valid host. OTOH, maybe that's over-specification. It need not be a valid host, just something the server finds acceptable. Which would mean that the words you just moved would have to be adjusted to be consistent. Summary: I'm glad you found the other problem, and I'm mushier about whether I think Bullet #1 should be changed. However, I think that the words regarding the host in an absoluteURI (#1) and the host in Host must agree (once and former #3). Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 11:43:07 UTC