Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 33936 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2001 05:21:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 33924 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2001 05:21:43 -0000 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:22 -0800 From: "Roy T. Fielding" To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: TLOSAP Subject: Re: URL encoding hostnames Message-ID: <20011117211722.E956@waka.ebuilt.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Roy T. Fielding" , dev@httpd.apache.org, TLOSAP References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 01:34:40PM -0800, Marc Slemko wrote: > (offtopic, but related...) > > is "http://%77ww.apache.org/" a valid URL refering to the same resource > that "http://www.apache.org/" does? > > RFC 2616 section 3.2.3 seems to imply that, for comparison purposes, > they are the same. > > RFC 2396 on generic URIs defines "server" in a way that doesn't allow > URI encoding, but that isn't specific to the http scheme, so it > could be overridden. The BNF for host does not allow it, and that is what is used by 2616. However, there have been requests to change that in the next revision. > If a %-encoded hostname is valid in a URL, is it valid in a Host: header? Not currently, but possibly in a future revision. > And, from the practical side, is there any reason to allow %-encoded > hostnames in URLs? The requests were coming from the DNS internationalization folks. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea. ....Roy