- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 12:49:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: koen@win.tue.nl
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote: >Scott Lawrence: >> >> In the course of our interoperability testing, we have found that >> many browsers ignore the Content-Base header field (see >> http://test11.agranat.com/basetest/). The spec now reads: >> >> ================ >> 14.11 Content-Base >> >> The Content-Base entity-header field may be used to specify the base URI >> for resolving relative URLs within the entity. >> >> Content-Base = "Content-Base" ":" absoluteURI >> >> If no Content-Base field is present, the base URI of an entity is >> defined either by its Content-Location (if that Content-Location URI is >> an absolute URI) or the URI used to initiate the request, in that order >> of precedence. Note, however, that the base URI of the contents within >> the entity-body may be redefined within that entity-body. >> ================ >> >> To get the proposal in at the front, I would like to see this >> changed to require that this header field be used if present: > >To confuse matters even further, I interpret the above text as already >implying that the client MUST use the Content-Base header if present, >and would maintain that all clients which do not are not compliant >with the text of the spec. I agree. The use of Content-Base or an absolute Content-Location URI to indicate the base is optional, but if sent, the client obviously must use it (and then possibly override it, if a BASE element is in the document) to be compliant. The use of Content-Base or an absolute Content-Location URI in this way has been in the HTTP/1.1 for a very long time now, and Lynx has it implemented in several releases. >However, I would not mind if Content-Base is deleted. >Content-Location can be used to do the same thing anyway. If there is at lease one other client besides Lynx which has implemented it, I do not think that it should be deleted. The requirement is for "two independent implementations" ;( NOT "implementation by two major commercial clients", though they both should implement it to be HTTP/1.1 compliant ); Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 10:04:24 UTC