httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anand Kumria <wildf...@progsoc.uts.edu.au>
Subject Re: absoluteURIs suck
Date Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:18:10 GMT
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> I really don't understand the lameness regarding absoluteURIs in HTTP/1.1. 
> Suppose HTTP/1.2 comes out and dictates that absoluteURIs must be used for
> all requests (this is hinted at in RFC2068).  In order to interoperate
> with HTTP/1.1 servers all HTTP/1.2 clients will have to also include Host:
> headers.  This is a waste of bandwidth having to include the hostname
> twice. 

And it will be because of Apache. This is basically the same issue I was
trying to point out to you in PR#1454 - if you follow the processing
strategy outlined in the RFC and ignore the precense of Host: fields then
client implementors won't have to do this.

> It could be fixed by relaxing HTTP/1.1 and requiring that the client MUST
> send either an absoluteURI or a relativeURI with a Host: header. 

Indeed following "Be liberal in what you accept" would be useful. The
rational (I beieve) for closing 1454 was that "Apache relaxes the
requirement for a Host: header for versions greater than HTTP/1.1"

Marc (Slemko) notes that some other HTTP server ignore the Host: header
(for 1.1 requests) and some others don't. Sounds like a spec ambiguity,
perhaps Roy Fielding would care to comment on the intent of the WG at the
time?

Regards,
Anand.

Mime
View raw message