[5315] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Location versus URI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob McCool)
Wed Aug 24 23:56:50 1994
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 05:54:31 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: robm@neon.mcom.com
From: robm@neon.mcom.com (Rob McCool)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Marc and I did nothing but follow the spec when we used Location:
instead of URI. We were using this HTTP "specification" which was
dated as expiring on 14 Jan 1994, and was released on 14 July
1993. This specification had not expired at the time.
This specification clearly states:
..
The response contains one of more header lines of the form
Location: <url> String CrLf
Which specify alternative addresses for the object in question.
..
No mention is made of URI *at all*.
However, when the specification dated 5 November 1993 came out *after
we had implemented the previous one*, Location had been completely
removed, and it had been replaced by URI. Despite numerous attempts to
get someone from CERN to put Location back in at least as a
depreciated form of URI, the specification still has no mention of
Location.
And so we see that no good deed goes unpunished.
--Rob
