Re: About that Host: header....

> >- Are there less extreme positions that make sense?
> Yes, and they are the ones I thought there was consensus on. Most people
> indicated they supported Jim's "#4", which, to quote it exactly, says:
> a) Add host header, with improved wording in the specification.
> b) Require 1.1 server to accept full URL from 1.1 or later client.
>   (so far, same as option 3).
> c) Require server to generate an error if a 1.1 client is detected, and no host
> information present (or more strongly, at the expense of extra bytes on
> the wire, no host header present).
> Transition to requiring full URL in 1.2, after 1.0 servers have been
> replaced.
> With some exact wording, that seems completely clear to me. It will not
> break the current Web, it will not greatly increase the traffic silently,
> it will not cause people to shun 1.1 clients, and will be easy to check
> compliance on.
> --Paul Hoffman
> --Internet Mail Consortium

The area that is unclear to me, is.. Are 1.1 servers REQUIRED to understand
the full URL?

I think it makes sense to have 1.1 servers understand either format.

		Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
		NCSA Server Development Team

Received on Friday, 22 March 1996 13:34:06 UTC