- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:28:52 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now issue 58; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i58 On 23/01/2007, at 10:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Mark Baker schrieb: >> On 1/22/07, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote: >>> sön 2007-01-21 klockan 20:35 -0500 skrev Mark Baker: >>> > This was posted to rest-discuss earlier this month, and >>> suggests an >>> > issue with 3.2.2. >>> >>> I don't quite get the issue. It says that the resource on the server >>> that acts on the request is identified by the abs_path, but so what? >> It's wrong. The resource is identified by the whole URI (or abs_path >> + query in this context). > > >>> It >>> also defines that there may be a query to that resource as part >>> of the >>> URL. The meaning of the query is defined in RFC2396 which also >>> has the >>> same definition of resource. >>> >>> But the sentence is quite irrelevant as the specs do not really >>> define >>> how servers implement or define the resources, and the resource >>> which >>> acts on the request is also quite irrelevant to the specs.. >> Agreed, but I think we should fix the error mentioned above either by >> removing all mention of the identified resource, or by saying it's >> identified by abs_path + query. I suppose I'd prefer the former (for >> the reasoning you give), but the latter is a less disruptive fix. >> *shrug* > > I agree that this needs to be fixed (re-open issue 11, MNot?). > > 3.2.2 really doesn't say what identifies the resource: > > "If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The > semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server > listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the > Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (Section 5.1.2)." > > But it *does* say what part of the HTTP URL becomes the Request- > URI, and that definitively needs to be fixed. > > Here's a proposed replacement text: > > "The semantics are that the identified resource is located at the > server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and > the Request-URI for the resource is abs_path plus the optional > query parameter (Section 5.1.2)." > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 07:29:26 UTC