- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:43:13 -0700
- To: 'Rodent of Unusual Size' <Ken.Coar@golux.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Does this mean that we (in the CGI work) can assume that fragments
> are legal in our overload definition of Location?
If it is that a CGI script can set the location header field with a value
containing a fragment then yes.
Btw, I have seen several servers sending relative Location header field
values. This does make sense but does it break any existing applications we
know of?
Regarding allowing fragments, I believe the same is the case for
Content-Location:
Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":"
( absoluteURI | relativeURI )
should be
Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":"
( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) [ "#" fragment ]
I don't like introducing a lot of "sanity rules" for when they are allowed
and when not. I think that proxy redirection (305 Use Proxy) is the only one
that shouldn't be allowed.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
frystyk@microsoft.com
Received on Friday, 13 August 1999 11:55:40 UTC