Re: Rev81: COMMENT: 5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request
Dave Kristol (dmk@allegra.att.com)
Fri, 31 May 96 14:24:08 EDT
jg@w3.org writes:
> Actually, there is a more serious problem with Roy's rewrite of 5.1 and 5.2
> section in the current document (04a) that I missed when vetting his changes
> (and mostly improvements).
>
> The requirement that all servers check that the host part is supplied
> one way or the other only is required to servers supporting multiple
> hosts in the current text. This requirement should be stronger; that
> all servers check and generate errors if host information is not
> present one way or the other. Otherwise we won't necessarily get the
> desired effect of detecting buggy 1.1 clients until 1.1 servers are
> deployed, likely much after when clients are shipped. This would
> result in the scenario of none of the host requirements being
> effective to solve the problem they were intended to solve.
>
> So Bullet #3 in 5.2 should be pulled out and put at the end of the first
> paragraph of section 5.2.
Agree.
>
> I think this fixes your problem as well.
I don't think so. I'm saying that Bullet #1 should require that the
host part of Request-URI be a valid host. OTOH, maybe that's
over-specification. It need not be a valid host, just something the
server finds acceptable. Which would mean that the words you just
moved would have to be adjusted to be consistent.
Summary: I'm glad you found the other problem, and I'm mushier about
whether I think Bullet #1 should be changed. However, I think that
the words regarding the host in an absoluteURI (#1) and the host in Host
must agree (once and former #3).
Dave Kristol