- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:18:18 +1000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Anne et al, As discussed at the bar bof/informal liaison in SF, this seems to be more of a URI issue; i.e., HTML and browser vendors need a named construct ("dirty URI", "hypertext reference", etc.) for what goes into the process, but from an HTTP perspective, this isn't evident. AIUI the follow-up will happen on the URI mailing list. Cheers, On 30/03/2009, at 11:25 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Hi, > > The definition of the Location header differs in various ways of how > at least Web browsers need to deal with them to interoperate with > content on the Web: > > 1. Need to handle relative URIs. > 2. Need to handle with spaces and other invalid URI characters in > the same way as done by e.g. HTML and CSS. (Percent-encode them > rather than treat it as error.) > > I suspect that any other tool that wants to deal with content on the > Web would have similar issues. There's some discussion here > including two sites this effects: > > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090323#l-152 > > (I suspect that every feature that takes a URI is similarly > affected, but I have not toyed with those.) > > (There was also a related issue for Location regarding how to handle > it when there's more than one such header, but I believe that was > raised already.) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 04:18:56 UTC