Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 13 February 2012 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8332221F8711 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2HD5lGkppk1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7438121F86A4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Rwo13-0000l6-6P for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:59:53 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Rwo0t-0000ho-15 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:59:43 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Rwo0q-0006Ws-Rw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:59:42 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.36.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2905250A64; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:59:18 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5AD13674-95D2-4B8B-AB84-30FBD5B45348@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:59:16 +1100
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F5646201-718C-4BA5-A644-9828186B88B0@mnot.net>
References: <6A53E99A-019D-4F6D-A33D-24524CD34E17@mnot.net> <4EFDFA17.4080804@gmx.de> <4F031419.1050708@gmx.de> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D06121B5AE5@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4F0608AB.20808@gmx.de> <EDB1544B-C4AE-41CA-806A-15FD1956D467@gbiv.com> <4F08649E.6060107@gmx.de> <5AD13674-95D2-4B8B-AB84-30FBD5B45348@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Rwo0q-0006Ws-Rw 499b62f7ed9071420b818afc6721acdf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F5646201-718C-4BA5-A644-9828186B88B0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12426
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Rwo13-0000l6-6P@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:59:53 +0000

Assigned for -19.

On 01/02/2012, at 4:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> On 08/01/2012, at 2:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> To make this change we could add to:
>> 
>> "The field value consists of a single URI-reference. When it has the form of a relative reference ([RFC3986], Section 4.2), the final value is computed by resolving it against the effective request URI ([RFC3986], Section 5)."
>> 
>> saying
>> 
>> "... If the original URI, as navigated to by the user agent, did contain a fragment identifier, and the final value does not, then the original URI's fragment identifier is added to the final value."
>> 
>> 
>> (and also we would kill <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18.html#rfc.section.9.5.p.9>).
> 
> Works for me; +1. Some examples wouldn't go astray.




--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/