- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:26:30 -0500
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, "'jg@pa.dec.com'" <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>, koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 17:35 01/10/98 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote: >A server recieves a GET from a client, the request is marked HTTP/1.1. The >server now knows it is dealing with a 1.1 client. So, no problem, according >to the HTTP/1.1 Draft Standard a 1.1 client MUST honor the content-base >header. So the server sends down a content-base expecting that the body will >be interpreted using the content-base header to resolve relative URIs. Of >course now the wrong thing will happen, the IE client will NOT honor the >content-base header because it is based on the proposed standard where >content-base is a MAY and the whole situation falls apart. Yes, this is no surprise and is yet another example showing that version numbers don't work on features. Content-base is always at risk of not working, even if all HTTP/1.1 applications understood it: A HTTP/1.1 caching proxy sends a request to an HTTP/1.1 server, gets back an entity with a content-base and puts it into the cache. Now an HTTP/1.0 client comes along and gets the entity from the cache, ignores the content-base and the links will break. You can substitute content-base with content-encoding, content-type, content-language, and pretty much any other characteristic of the resource. The real problem is that sometimes this is OK and sometimes it's not - it depends on the type of client asking. In the case of content-base, I don't care if my client doesn't parse the darn thing. We went through a lot of hickups solving this for content-encoding but I doubt that anybody is willing to do the same for content-base. To me, this leaves two ways of dealing with the problem: 1) leave it as is admitting that this was an evolutionary mistake 2) try an patch it and mention that "your milage will vary" I think I read from the discussion that people see a (limited) need for the feature, so maybe the right thing is to use a SHOULD and then include a note like this: Note: Many applications based on RFC 2068 or previous versions of HTTP ignore the content-base header field when parsing relative URIs in documents. Henrik -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Sunday, 11 January 1998 23:08:29 UTC