# Re: Base URLs

David Robinson (drtr1@cam.ac.uk)
Fri, 10 Feb 95 12:19 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: David Robinson: "Re: Forms/CGI urls: '&' in HREF attributes"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Forms/CGI urls: '&' in HREF attributes"
- Maybe in reply to: Owen Rees: "Base URLs"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Base URLs"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Base URLs"

    Message-Id: <m0rcuJU-0007akC@grus.cus.cam.ac.uk>

    Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 12:19 GMT

    To: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU

    Subject: Re: Base URLs

    From: drtr1@cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)

It seems that I wasn't sufficiently precise with my language; what I was trying
to explain to Owen Rees what was wrong with Base: headers taking precedence
over document content.

[All you other comments are valid]

> > Why distinguish message
> > headers from other retrieval contexts?
>
>It does not. Message headers ARE the retrieval context -- the document
>is encapsulated inside the message.

But it does! You talk about retrieval context in section 3.3, but a base URL
within message headers is mentioned in section 3.2. The implication, for a
casual reader, is that message headers are not retrieval context. This is also
shown graphically, with a box between the two. Hence, as Owen Rees assumed, the
relative priority of message headers and document content was chosen
arbitrarily.

I was trying to suggest that the base URL in message headers should be
explained as simply another example of retrieval context.

David.

- Next message: David Robinson: "Re: Forms/CGI urls: '&' in HREF attributes"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Forms/CGI urls: '&' in HREF attributes"
- Maybe in reply to: Owen Rees: "Base URLs"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Base URLs"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Base URLs"