- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:09:09 -0800
- To: Rob McCool <robm@netscape.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Rob McCool wrote:
>
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > As far as the extra port number on Host goes, if you're proposing that
> > we put it into the HTTP/1.0 spec, well, it probably could fit into the
> > appendix along with all the other stuff that is roughly implemented in
> > various places but inconsistently.
> >
> > This doesn't preclude us declaring that Host: in HTTP/1.x should not
> > have a port number. Right?
>
> That works for us.
I disagree. I put the port into the string on purpose because
I don't want to end up in the same situation we are in now
with hosts. When the web first started we had no idea that the
host name would be an important peice of information. We are
in a similar situation with port numbers. Right now they
seem useless, but at some point in the future they may be
very useful. I think we should ABSOLUTELY include the port
number when going to a non default port.
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 1996 14:11:36 UTC