W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1996

Re: About that Host: header....

From: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:27:02 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <9603222127.AA06593@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/56
> >- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:58 UTC