Re: Proposal for ... POST when dealing with large numbers of URIs

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:44:15 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> It seems like the current spec uses "/foo/" just to be able to do
>> substring matches. This seems like the wrong reason to make this
>> decision.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding the spec, that's not the case. It certainly
> wasn't the case in my proposal...

The specification only "appends" "/" (if not present) for comparison  
purposes. Not for doing the actual request. This is to ensure that

   /foo.txt

can't set the policy for

   /foo.txt.bar/x

It could set the policy for /foo.txt/... though, an unlikely server setup,  
although it may be an argument for doing the request to the "/" appended  
version always. Either way works for me.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 11:42:44 UTC