Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header

Julian Reschke wrote:

> assuming we replaced RFC2396's host with RCF3986's host, the 
> following would become legal:
>   Host: :81
> Bug or feature?

At some point ABNF is lost, <reg-name> can take rather odd forms:

Syntactically valid, I think.  It's less clear what it means.


Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:29:42 UTC