- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:08:08 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 08/10/2009, at 12:31 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> 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. >> >> +1, but we need to consider the details. >> >> Currently, we have >> >> "The value of Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity." >> >> Do we drop this (potentially breaking currently conforming >> implementations), or do we make it optional? > > Personally, I'd say the former; we've found cases where it can be > harmful, it isn't widely implemented, and making it optional will lead > to yet more interoperability problems. We are chartered to improve > interop, and are explicitly allowed to change things when this is the case. > >> In both case, we'll also have to record this as a normative change in >> the Changes section. > > Yes. OK, change applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/712> (which has broken checkin comment, sorry for that). I note that in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154>, we have: > Note that this differs from the MIME header of same name. Is this something that requires spec text, or was that just a reminder that HTTP and MIME are allowed to differ with respect to this? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 10:08:49 UTC