Re: HTTP 1.1 issue 17: 14.36 Referer

> From: "Ross Patterson" <ROSSP@SS1.Reston.VMD.Sterling.COM>
> Resent-From:
> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 10:46:42 EST
> To:
> Subject: HTTP 1.1 issue 17: 14.36 Referer
> -----
> In section 14.36 "Referer", the statement
>    "If the field value is a partial URI, it SHOULD be interpreted
>    relative to the Request-URI."
> sounds more like a MUST than a SHOULD. An interoperability problem will
> result if two implementations interpret the referring URI differently.
> If the SHOULD is due to compatibility with earlier usage, that should be
> noted someplace.

A referer (sic) cannot be an interoperability problem in the first place,
as it is only provided to a server as a benefit (at some cost to the
client, I might add).

So it is hard to make a claim that this should be a MUST, as it isn't
mandantory information in the first place, and is just suggesting how
the server might interpret the graciously supplied partial URI in the
first place.

I don't see any need for a change.
			- Jim

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 12:48:15 UTC