Changeset 114


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 28, 2007, 8:30:47 AM (12 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

Issue #14: note changes in Changes section and add lost text from draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01.

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

    r113 r114  
    14281428         </dd>
    14291429      </dl>
     1430      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.6">There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URL would not be appropriate: </p>
     1431      <ul>
     1432         <li>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</li>
     1433         <li>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment
     1434            characteristics.
     1435         </li>
     1436         <li>With 305 Use Proxy.</li>
     1437      </ul>
    14301438      <div id="rfc.iref.m.9"></div>
    14311439      <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
     
    16641672         user agent is able to make that determination based on the request method semantics. (Sections <a href="#status.301" id="rfc.xref.status.301.2" title="301 Moved Permanently">9.3.2</a>, <a href="#status.302" id="rfc.xref.status.302.2" title="302 Found">9.3.3</a> and <a href="#status.307" id="rfc.xref.status.307.2" title="307 Temporary Redirect">9.3.8</a> )
    16651673      </p>
    1666       <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly
     1674      <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications
     1675         as to when it would not be appropriate. (<a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.3" title="Location">Section&nbsp;10.4</a>)
     1676      </p>
     1677      <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.4">In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly
    16671678         in the description of the Via header in <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.3" title="Server">Section&nbsp;10.8</a>)
    16681679      </p>
     
    18111822                        <li class="indline1">Expect&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.expect.1">4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.expect.2">9.4.18</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.3"><b>10.2</b></a></li>
    18121823                        <li class="indline1">From&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.from.1">4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.4"><b>10.3</b></a></li>
    1813                         <li class="indline1">Location&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.1">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.2">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.5"><b>10.4</b></a></li>
     1824                        <li class="indline1">Location&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.1">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.2">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.5"><b>10.4</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.3">A.2</a></li>
    18141825                        <li class="indline1">Max-Forwards&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.1">4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.2">8.8</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.6"><b>10.5</b></a></li>
    18151826                        <li class="indline1">Referer&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.referer.1">4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.7"><b>10.6</b></a></li>
     
    18231834            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.L" href="#rfc.index.L"><b>L</b></a><ul class="ind">
    18241835                  <li class="indline1">LINK method&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.l.2"><b>A.1</b></a></li>
    1825                   <li class="indline1">Location header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.1">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.2">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.l.1"><b>10.4</b></a></li>
     1836                  <li class="indline1">Location header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.1">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.2">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.l.1"><b>10.4</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.location.3">A.2</a></li>
    18261837                  <li class="indline1"><em>Luo1998</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Luo1998.1">8.9</a>, <a class="iref" href="#Luo1998"><b>14</b></a></li>
    18271838               </ul>
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

    r113 r114  
    18251825  </t></list>
    18261826</t>
     1827<t>
     1828   There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URL would not be appropriate:
     1829   <list style="symbols">
     1830      <t>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</t>
     1831      <t>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment characteristics.</t>
     1832      <t>With 305 Use Proxy.</t>
     1833   </list>
     1834</t>
    18271835</section>
    18281836
     
    25652573</t>
    25662574<t>
     2575  Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment,
     2576  as referred symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some
     2577  clarifications as to when it would not be appropriate.
     2578  (<xref target="header.location"/>)
     2579</t>
     2580<t>
    25672581  In the description of the Server header, the Via field
    25682582  was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.