Re: Getting full URI to the server
John Franks (john@math.nwu.edu)
Sun, 12 Feb 1995 12:45:30 -0600 (CST)
According to Roy T. Fielding:
>
> > Why not pass the full URI in a header line? No change to the request
> > line necessary, and essentially upwards compatible. Perhaps:
> >
> > Full-URI: http://foo.bar.org/index.html
>
> This, or some variation upon it, has been discussed several times
> on the mailing list. The most common response is that it includes
> too much extra information which would better appear in the Request-URI.
> Rather than discussing that again, let's simplify it a bit:
>
> Host: foo.bar.org
>
>
> The final question is: Does the additional functionality justify the cost
> and effort of including the Host header in the 1.1 standard, with the
> necessarily strong recommendation that it be included with all requests?
>
> In my opinion, the answer to this last question is NO.
I suspect that the ability to customize the default page based on
hostname part of the URL is the single most requested feature from
server maintainers. I doubt that a week goes by without a thread on
this subject in c.i.w.providers. The practice of using multiple IP
addresses on a single host for the sole purpose of working around this
deficiency in the protocol is becoming increasingly common.
Those who are critical of adding a new HTTP header just for "vanity
addresses" should keep in mind that the likely alternative is the
wasteful use of IP addresses just for vanity addresses.
John Franks