- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:42:20 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > tis 2009-07-28 klockan 17:32 +0200 skrev Henrik Nordstrom: > >> And we don't allow fragments in Location or Content-Location either, >> with both referencing absoluteURI and not URI-reference. Neither 2068, >> 2396 or 3986 (in the form of absolute-URI) allows fragments in this >> production. > > My error. Forgot that we had changed Location to reference URI instead > of absolute-URI. > > So my question in light of what has been seen, should that change stay > or should we revert back to absolute-URI as used by 2068 and 2616 moving > the use of fragments back into the "undefined" field? They are used in practice, and their behavior *is* defined in case the original URI didn't have a fragment. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 15:43:06 UTC