RE: MUST use Content-Base

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jacob Palme: "Multiple Content-Location headers"
• Previous message: Yaron Goland: "RE: MUST use Content-Base"
• In reply to: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "RE: MUST use Content-Base"

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> I think I read from the discussion that people see a (limited) need for the
> feature, so maybe the right thing is to use a SHOULD and then include a
> note like this:
> 
> 	Note: Many applications based on RFC 2068 or
> 	previous versions of HTTP ignore the content-base
> 	header field when parsing relative URIs in
> 	documents.

Some note of that sort should certainly be included, but I still think
that this needs to be a MUST or be omitted.  Granted, all implementations
earlier than 2068 and some (including important ones) based on 2068 will
not do this.  The point is that it is a good thing (IMHO) to have in the
protocol in the future and if we make it a must then the day will come
when it can be assumed to work more or less universally; if we do not make
it a MUST then that day will not come, and the protocol feature is
useless.  I was most carefull in my original post - this should either be
a MUST or it should be removed altogether; I don't think that compromise
is helpfull here.

• Next message: Jacob Palme: "Multiple Content-Location headers"
• Previous message: Yaron Goland: "RE: MUST use Content-Base"
• In reply to: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "RE: MUST use Content-Base"