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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 01 February 2012 05:16 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 8D8FD11E80C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:16:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.009, 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 4FSDSzofbvtk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C049411E80B3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsSWh-0000sK-Oy for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:14:35 +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 1RsSWU-0000lp-Fe for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:14:22 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1RsSWS-0001cV-Ak for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:14:21 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.240.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DF7A22E247; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:13:57 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F08649E.6060107@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:13:54 +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: <5AD13674-95D2-4B8B-AB84-30FBD5B45348@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>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.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 1RsSWS-0001cV-Ak b8e3418454b3ac0a3decfaabcbf7b59f
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/5AD13674-95D2-4B8B-AB84-30FBD5B45348@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12295
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: <E1RsSWh-0000sK-Oy@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:14:35 +0000

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/