Subject: RE: Fragments in "Location" field

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:43:13 -0700

> Does this mean that we (in the CGI work) can assume that fragments
> are legal in our overload definition of Location?

If it is that a CGI script can set the location header field with a value
containing a fragment then yes.

Btw, I have seen several servers sending relative Location header field
values. This does make sense but does it break any existing applications we
know of?

Regarding allowing fragments, I believe the same is the case for
Content-Location:

       Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":"
                         ( absoluteURI | relativeURI )

should be

       Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":"
                         ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) [ "#" fragment ]

I don't like introducing a lot of "sanity rules" for when they are allowed
and when not. I think that proxy redirection (305 Use Proxy) is the only one
that shouldn't be allowed.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
[email-masked]

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:49:43 -0700

>                         ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) [ "#" fragment ]

No, that would be incorrect.  The reference in Content-Location must be
to a resource, not a fragment of a resource representation.

....Roy