- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:23:34 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Host is full of baggage imposed by folks who never implemented > HTTP and had no way of knowing that mandating Host on all messages > was a complete waste of time (it had already been implemented on > all browsers). > > We don't need to change the mandate, but we can improve the > description so that it explains all of the types of possible > HTTP requests and note the fact that not all URIs have a host > portion. The empty Host is for that reason. I thought that > this was already on the issues list, but I guess not. > > Note that host in RFC3986 is already defined to allow empty > (because reg-name can be empty). Interesting. So... assuming we replaced RFC2396's host with RCF3986's host, the following would become legal: Host: :81 Bug or feature? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:50:30 UTC