- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:52:48 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 02/09/2011, at 6:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-09-02 03:06, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 01/09/2011, at 8:51 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/295> - fragment handling >> >> We discussed this a little while back, and the only pushback was from you as to whether it was appropriate for HTTPbis to go here. >> >> We have feedback from Eric and Adam that they'd like to see us do this. >> >> I put forth the idea of going to the TAG about it earlier, but when we asked them about #43, they didn't seem to have any strong advice (see<http://www.w3.org/mid/760bcb2a1003120853q6548f1a9u54f0aef723f4f45a@mail.gmail.com>). >> >> Speaking personally -- I think it would improve interop if we did this, and I think we should also consider reopening #43 to define the case where both have a fragment (since there appears to be emerging interop). >> >> Having HTTP define fragment combination (both in the single and dual cases) makes sense, because IME, client-side stacks handle HTTP redirects automatically, before the format-specific machinery ever gets to see the HTTP. Requiring -- or even allowing -- that this be format-specific opens up a huge can of worms in most implementations, and makes the Web a much more complex place. >> ... > > Are you saying that these stacks actually handle fragments? Example? No, I'm saying that many handle redirects, and re-engineering them to delegate fragment combination to format-specific handlers will be awkward. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 08:53:18 UTC