W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:57:34 -0800
Message-Id: <813923AD-3271-402C-A2D4-5AAC1FF2C9CC@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>

On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> HTTP headers have a separate name space in the message header  
> registry, so it can be done;
>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html

That's a nice theory, but HTTP carries MIME messages and they are  
the same fields in one namespace. Conflicts are noticed by the folks who
are responsible for maintaining MIME and they do, historically,  
object to
the IESG when HTTP attempts to reuse them in a way that might lead to
confusion if a message passes across protocol boundaries.

At most, what we could do is say that a recipient may ignore the
base-setting semantics of Content-Location when present in the
outermost fields of an HTTP message received during HTTP communication.
Personally, I think that would be a mistake.  I would prefer to say
that a recipient may disregard the base-setting semantics if there also
exists a base URI from the retrieval context and use of that base URI
for parsing relative references within the entity results in fewer
errors than use of the Content-Location URI.  A bad Content-Location
value SHOULD be reported to the user as an error.

Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 23:57:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC