- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:41:17 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi, i have done some more work on this, and now have reached a stage where request-target is only be used when we really mean it. Almost everywhere else we now use the new term "Effective Request URI". See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/196/i196.7.diff>. Reminder: there are a few open questions on which I still like to see feedback: #1 request-target "*" The message syntax allows "*" as request-target, for which no HTTP URI syntax is defined (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6.3> defines "/" and empty path to be equivalent). On the other hand, special-casing "*" might be tricky, so for *Effective Request URI*, we *do* define a serialization (with empty path). #2 comparing effective request URIs We currently define comparison to be consistent with normal HTTP URI comparison, except that we skip the part that makes empty paths and "/" equivalent (due to #1). As far as I can tell, comparison of effective request URIs is only relevant in the context of caching; and the responses to "OPTIONS *" aren't cacheable anyway, so maybe we don't need to special-case this. #3 new term for "resource identified by effective request URI" In many places, the spec tries to talk about the URI addressed by the request (and historically used request-URI for that). It would be very convenient if we defined the term "addressed resource" for that (to be defined in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6.3>; this might also allow to get rid of a few cases where we currently (still) use "requested resource" or "requested variant". Feedback appreciated, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:41:56 UTC