- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:23:08 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I haven't seen any discussion of this, but I believe the general feeling is to drop the base-setting semantics of Content-Location in HTTP. Any other thoughts? Otherwise we'll go in that direction. On 07/04/2009, at 1:53 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > OK. As mentioned, C-L does other things besides set the base, so it > seems like we just need to choose between the two proposals from Roy > (or come up with another). > > Now issue #154; > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154 > > > On 07/04/2009, at 12:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> Anne and Ian, does this adequately encompass your issue? If other >>> aspects are important, it would be helpful if you provided a >>> succinct >>> summary. >> >> IIRC, browsers have found it impossible to implement Content- >> Location as >> setting the base URI for a document without breaking significant >> content >> on the Web. So long as what HTTP defines is implementable in a >> manner that >> is compatible with legacy content, the issue would be resolved, I >> think. >> IMHO it is not critical whether this is done by making the header >> have no >> effect, have some other effect, or removing the header altogether >> (though >> the former seems pointless). >> >> -- >> Ian Hickson U+1047E ) >> \._.,--....,'``. fL >> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ >> \ ;`._ ,. >> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- >> (,_..'`-.;.' > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 04:23:44 UTC