> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > In HTTP/1.0, looking at the Host header is non standard. We can look at it > > if it is there (and I believe we do; if we don't it is very simple to change > > that), but in the end the HTTP/1.0 protocol is inefficient broken in many > > The Host header is not specified in the standard - it's what we would call > a 'standard extension' :-) There are few extensions to the HTTP/1.0 that > are in very common use - in the sense that all browsers and most clients > support them, and Host is the best example. > > Some of those extensions found their way into HTTP/1.1 spec. > > AFAIK Host: allways worked this way ( at least in the last 5 years ).
Thanks for the details. > > I see a lot of noise from you about this trivial issue. Is there something I > > missed ? > > I guess we're missing Nacho's commit that fixes the problem :-) Yes, he seemed to have a good idea about what was needed. > It seems to be an itch for him - we're just making noise to encourage > him to fix it :-) Since I was getting curious about what all this was about - :) - I went and looked at the code, and it looks as if the header is present, we're parsing it for HTTP/1.0 (looks good), but if no port is specified, in HTTP/1.1 we default to 80 (or 443), and in HTTP/1.0 we default to the socket port. It doesn't look very consistent to me ;-) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
