- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:49:12 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Works for me. On 14/10/2009, at 9:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Wasn't there also some aspect whereby a negotiated resource would >> make the links relative to the C-L URL, thereby messing things up? >> ... > > Ah, that part. > > So the issue is: the C-L *does* set the base URI, it may break > relative links when original URI and CL-URI use different paths > (well, unless the format allows setting the base URI in-line as > well, for instance in HTML using the <base> element). > > So how about changing: > > "Remove base URI setting semantics for Content-Location due to poor > implementation support." > > to > > "Remove base URI setting semantics for Content-Location due to poor > implementation support, which was caused by too many broken servers > emitting bogus Content-Location headers, and also the potentially > undesirable effect of potentially breaking relative links in content- > negotiated resources." > > ? > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 10:49:50 UTC