httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject absoluteURIs suck
Date Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:09:24 GMT
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

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. 

Apache 1.2 and 1.3 are broken as far as forward compatibility with this
hypothetical HTTP spec as well.  Consider: 


No NameVirtualHost in the config.  I consider the only correct way to
implement this config is that *all requests* appearing at will
be served by that virtual host.  Right now if a request appears there with
an absolute URI with a hostname that isn't listed *we will reject it*.
This means we're not forward compatible with some lame HTTP version that
doesn't exist but is threatened to exist. 

Contrast this with the behaviour on a Host: header that we don't
recognize... we just don't care about it, we serve what has been
configured (a default server, or the ip-vhost).

Martin I'm gonna go look at your uri parsing patch.  I think in order to
fix some of this we really need it.


View raw message