On 02.09.2010 00:00, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de
<mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de>> wrote:
On 01.09.2010 10:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
...
I thought of another reason to want the original XHR object
to be
responsible for following the redirect: the value of a
Location header
may be a relative URL. It would be nice if application
authors did not
have to take care of resolving that manually. (In the case of a
cross-origin
request, the relative URL should be resolved relative to the
URL that was
redirected instead of against the Document.) This seems like
something
that could be easy to mess up.
Yeah, I thought of that. There's location.resolveURL(), but it
does not
take a base URL at the moment. We could add that. Though note that
relative URLs are forbidden in theory.
...
They are in RFC 2616, but not in HTTPbis
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11.html#rfc.section.9.4>).
Best regards, Julian
What does it mean for them to not be part of HTTPbis? Relative URLs in
Location headers are not uncommon.
Clarifying: they are *forbidden* in RFC 2616 (*), but not in HTTPbis
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics11.html#rfc.section.9.4>),
so HTTPbis *allows* them now.
BR, Julian
(*) the ABNF doesn't allow them.
