Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header

I was thinking maybe a note in p1 request-target's description, as well as appropriate adjustments elsewhere in p1.

I've opened

On 14/07/2010, at 5:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Jul 13, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Since we're going on this tangent -
>> Is this (proxying other URI schemes through HTTP) worth making a little more explicit? The question of whether non-HTTP URI schemes are allowed in HTTP comes up from time to time. Other issues (e.g., what to do with the Host header) come up as well.
> We could add something to the discussion on URIs in p1
> or maybe add a dedicated section in p2.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 07:13:53 UTC