RE: MUST use Content-Base

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> 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.

Some note of that sort should certainly be included, but I still think
that this needs to be a MUST or be omitted.  Granted, all implementations
earlier than 2068 and some (including important ones) based on 2068 will
not do this.  The point is that it is a good thing (IMHO) to have in the
protocol in the future and if we make it a must then the day will come
when it can be assumed to work more or less universally; if we do not make
it a MUST then that day will not come, and the protocol feature is
useless.  I was most carefull in my original post - this should either be
a MUST or it should be removed altogether; I don't think that compromise
is helpfull here.

Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 08:24:15 UTC