Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

On 01.02.2013 16:56, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2013 1:50 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of
>>> trouble:
>>>   1) scheme of URI is always http(s)://.
>> Yes, it does make this assumption. It seems, rather safe to me. What other
>> schemes do we need to support?
> I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.  I've heard of other
> schemes used in production systems (in enterprises, granted, but so
> what, the same might be useful in the Internet).
>
> Nico

The scheme which comes to my mind is ftp. As far as I know this is 
supported by browsers and there are proxies translating between HTTP and 
FTP.

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 17:26:38 UTC