Re: Rev81: COMMENT: 5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request

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