- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 13:35:03 -0700
- To: "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
I thought URLs had a caonical form -- bad chars coverted to %xx, etc. Maybe it's in the URL RFC? -----Original Message----- From: David W. Morris [mailto:dwm@xpasc.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 3:55 PM Might be an artifact of moving the syntactical definition of a URL to be a reference so that the definition of canonical got lost? Dave Morris On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 Mike_Spreitzer.PARC@xerox.com wrote: > What is the significance of including the word ``canonical'' in the following > sentence in draft-ietf-http-authentication-01 section 1.2? The cited section > of the HTTP/1.1 draft defines the "root" URL of a server, but the word > canonical doesn't appear there. Is this an editorial bug in one spec or the > other? > > ``The realm value (case-sensitive), in combination with the canonical root URL > (see section 5.1.2 of [2]) of the server being accessed, defines the protection > space.'' > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 1998 13:37:17 UTC