Changeset 114 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest

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:

• p2-semantics.html (modified) (4 diffs)
• p2-semantics.xml (modified) (2 diffs)

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

@@ -1428 +1428 @@
          </dd>
       </dl>
+      <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>
+      <ul>
+         <li>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</li>
+         <li>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment
+            characteristics.
+         </li>
+         <li>With 305 Use Proxy.</li>
+      </ul>
       <div id="rfc.iref.m.9"></div>
       <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
@@ -1664 +1672 @@
          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> )
       </p>
-      <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
+      <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
+         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>)
+      </p>
+      <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
          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>)
       </p>
@@ -1811 +1822 @@
                         <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>
                         <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>
-                        <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>
+                        <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>
                         <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>
                         <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>
@@ -1823 +1834 @@
             <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.L" href="#rfc.index.L"><b>L</b></a><ul class="ind">
                   <li class="indline1">LINK method&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.l.2"><b>A.1</b></a></li>
-                  <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>
+                  <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>
                   <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>
                </ul>

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

@@ -1825 +1825 @@
   </t></list>
 </t>
+<t>
+   There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URL would not be appropriate:
+   <list style="symbols">
+      <t>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</t>
+      <t>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment characteristics.</t>
+      <t>With 305 Use Proxy.</t>
+   </list>
+</t>
 </section>
 
@@ -2565 +2573 @@
 </t>
 <t>
+  Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment,
+  as referred symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some
+  clarifications as to when it would not be appropriate.
+  (<xref target="header.location"/>)
+</t>
+<t>
   In the description of the Server header, the Via field
   was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated