- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:22:43 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> (material elided...) > When I was rewriting the URI specification and arguing with the MHTML > group, I came to the conclusion that Content-Base is not needed provided > that Content-Location is implemented as specified. The reasoning was > similar to what Dave Morris mentioned: the only person capable of knowing > whether or not the embedded references in a document are relative to > some other namespace is the document creator, and they are better-off > making that distinction within the document. Granted, some formats may > not have the equivalent of HTML's BASE, but I would argue that those > formats are very unlikely to contain relative references. > Do others agree with Roy's analysis? Is this true in the face of negotiated resources, where Content-Location might be used to tell you where the underlying version is found? The minimalist in me says if we don't actually need a mechanism, or a different mechanism we do need can be used to solve a problem, we shouldn't have it... And we haven't heard other opinions (e.g. lynx, etc....). I'd like to hear from others who've formed opinions. - Jim -- Jim Gettys Industry Standards and Consortia Digital Equipment Corporation Visting Scientist, World Wide Web Consortium, M.I.T. http://www.w3.org/People/Gettys/ jg@w3.org, jg@pa.dec.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 1998 11:25:25 UTC