Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:06:26 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

>
> Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA) schrieb:
>>> The header allows relative URIs, so it seems to me it would be safe  
>>> for user agents to support the header if - for instance - it's an  
>>> absolute path. That should still cover the majority of the use cases...
>>  Sorry, Julien. Won't work.
>> ...
>
> Understood. But please understand I said "majority" not "all". If we'd

Well, this is a case where it can't work for one use case: Web surfing

> remove all HTTP features that *some* sites get wrong, where would that  
> end?

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a large number of websites  
implementing something wrong you reach a point where you have to decide if  
it is possible and realistic to work around the problem by detecting the  
existence of the problem, or drop the feature. For Content-Location  
working around it was not realistic.

Off-topic example: For HTTP pipelining we've implemented a lot of  
heuristics to handle bad servers, and there are still servers (from major  
vendors), that cause problems I'm currently unable to work around.

> And, btw, would RoyF's suggested change  
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0192.html>)  
> fix the problem for you?

Not sure. The way I read it, it removes the one thing we were using it  
for: A Base URL replacement.

It may very well be that Content-Location can be useful in some  
applications, but ordinary web surfing is not such an application.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
 
********************************************************************
Senior Developer                     Email: yngve@opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
********************************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 23:34:50 UTC