Roy says: > > Because it doesn't gain us anything more than just sending Host on > all HTTP/1.x requests. If there was something wrong with the Host > solution, then I could understand the desire to do that. However, > given that there is nothing wrong with the Host solution, and Host > has already been deployed, this all seems like a waste of time. The things that are wrong with the Host: solution, to my mind, are: - It STILL leaves us with a protocol where URLs are things that protocol entities have to break into little pieces and chew upon. - It STILL leaves us with an UA-to-cache protocol that is incompatible with the UA-to-server and cache-to-server protocol. - It STILL loses the method information. - It STILL gives us no path to where it seems everyone wants to be, namely with full URLs, until we throw out HTTP/1.x altogether These aren't "nothing". The question is which pain is lesser. Harald AReceived on Sunday, 24 March 1996 23:45:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:58 UTC