Re: Redirection: "Location" or "Uri" ?
Tony Sanders <sanders@BSDI.COM>
Message-id: <199401141639.KAA07042@austin.BSDI.COM>
To: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Redirection: "Location" or "Uri" ?
In-Reply-To: Rob McCool's message of Fri, 14 Jan 1994 05:04:15 CST.
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 10:39:37 -0600
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@BSDI.COM>
Content-Length: 1475
There are quite a few changes in the HTTP spec. Time for a re-read!
> * Location: <url>
[changed to the following by TimBL a few months ago]
> * Uri: <url> String CrLf
What needs to happen is all clients should be changed to support both.
When that happens we should start converting servers to send URI: instead
of Location:. Clients will probably need to support Location: for a long
time, but it's cost is very low (it's really just a special case of URI:).
HTTP SPEC CHANGE REQUEST:
The HTTP spec should be changed to mention Location: as the depreciated
URI: specifier without the vary parameter.
Also "Content-Language:" gives examples "Language: En_US". So is it
Content-Language or just Language. If it's Content-Language: then
it should be Content-Version:. I vote for using a Content- prefix
to reduce namespace conflicts (you still have a few, Content-Length
for example).
URI: was chosen for a generic object location identifier and it includes
the "vary" parameter which allows you to specify things about the object.
For example, you can point to an *exact* object, or an object in which
the "version" varies, or an object in which the "language" varies,
or an object in which the "content-type" may vary.
There are headers to go along with each of the dimension of variability
(namely Language:, Version:, and Content-Type:). Version: isn't fully
spec'ed out yet. Of course, this is an extensible list.
--sanders