Subject: NEW ISSUE: rel_path not used

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:57:47 +0200

RFC2616 changed the ABNF for http_URL so that it doesn't use rel_path 
(as defined in RFC2396) anymore.

However, that definition is still "adopted" in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.3.2.1>:

"URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some 
known base URI [11], depending upon the context of their use. The two 
forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs always begin 
with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive information on 
URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): 
Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 2396 [42] (which replaces RFCs 1738 
[4] and RFC 1808 [11]). This specification adopts the definitions of 
"URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", 
"host","abs_path", "rel_path", and "authority" from that specification."

...and used in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.13.9.p.2>:

"We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have 
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a 
"?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side 
effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless 
the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically means 
that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT be taken 
from a cache. See Section 9.1.1 for related information."

Proposal:

1) get rid of the mention in 3.2.1, and

2) in 13.9 paragraph 2, replace
	
	 ...query URLs (those containing a "?" in the rel_path part)...

by

	...URLs containing a query part...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:37:46 +0200

> 1) get rid of the mention in 3.2.1, and

Yes.

> 	...URLs containing a query part...

Yes.

The reference to rel_path is plain wrong here as rel_path do not include
the query part, and additionally is not allowed to be used in HTTP
request URIs..

relative URIs (which rel_path is a subset component of) is only allowed
in Content-Location and Referer.

Regards
Henrik

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:43:09 +1000

Now i82.

<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i82>

On 08/10/2007, at 4:57 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> RFC2616 changed the ABNF for http_URL so that it doesn't use  
> rel_path (as defined in RFC2396) anymore.
>
> However, that definition is still "adopted" in <http:// 
> greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.3.2.1>:
>
> "URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to  
> some known base URI [11], depending upon the context of their use.  
> The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs  
> always begin with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive  
> information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource  
> Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 2396 [42]  
> (which replaces RFCs 1738 [4] and RFC 1808 [11]). This  
> specification adopts the definitions of "URI-reference",  
> "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", "host","abs_path",  
> "rel_path", and "authority" from that specification."
>
> ...and used in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ 
> rfc2616.html#rfc.section.13.9.p.2>:
>
> traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing  
> a "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant  
> side effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh  
> unless the server provides an explicit expiration time. This  
> specifically means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such  
> URIs SHOULD NOT be taken from a cache. See Section 9.1.1 for  
> related information."
>
> Proposal:
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/