Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:52:51 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> ... >>> Regarding relative URIs -- changing their syntax to allow relative >>> URIs would be a breaking change for existing implementations, so at >>> first blush it's out of scope for HTTPbis (and indeed anything but >>> HTTP/2.0). >> > ... >> >> Indeed. > > Deferring the issue to HTTP/2.0 does not solve the problem because > implementations have to implement this for HTTP/1.1 (and likely earlier, > haven't checked). No, implementations do not have to, according to the spec. I believe you that browsers currently do, but I'm pretty certain that there's lots of code out there that doesn't accept relative URIs (or malformed URIs), which would become non-compliant by this change. So, again, this would be an incompatible change. BR, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:59:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC