- From: <hallam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 13:28:43 -0500
- To: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Cc: hallam@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>I believe Netscape clients already support the host header (but you better >ask someone from Netscape) and the change is already in the pipeline for >the Mosaic clients. So yes, I'd say the Host header is well on the way >to being supported already. This is the case, I have trapped many host header lines from my Netscape 2.0 client. I think that this discussion is going round in circles. We may prefer to have the full URI but there is a vast 1.0 infrastructure out there. The best we can do is to start a phased change which may well take several years. I can imagine that 1.2 might reuire a full URI for new methods (e.g. WRAPPED) but it looks like Jim's option 4 is the only viable one. Since Roy, Jim and the venodrs appear to be supporting the "use host but under protest and require 1.1 clients accept full URIs" strategy. Can we close this discussion? I'm sure there are other issues we should be panicing about... Phill
Received on Monday, 25 March 1996 10:35:13 UTC