Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Sender: browse@raq6.ger-net.de
Message-ID: <4217E097.DA742232@arne-thomassen.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:57:59 +0100
From: Arne Thomassen <arne@arne-thomassen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with redirections
References: <42168DA5.EEB5F6D6@arne-thomassen.de>
 <5b16cffafab2b590d5b2504167d01354@gbiv.com>
 <42178D58.DE3E6745@arne-thomassen.de>
 <533f6944ed025a381fc929d5dec8780e@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > But I disagree with your interpretation of the specification. 14.23
> > says
> > "port number [...] as obtained from the original URI", and 3.2.2 says
> > "If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed". So the client
> > "obtained" the port number by "assuming" that the standard port is
> > meant.
> 
> 3.2.2 talks about the URI definition for http.  14.23 specifies what
> to put in the Host header field.

14.23 refers to 3.2.2 several times. But probably I'm just
misinterpreting the specification, so I'll stop arguing. The modified
client works now, which was the main purpose of my questions. Thank you
for explaining the details.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
www.arne-thomassen.de