redirection question

[Erwin Moller]

Re: redirection question

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Erwin Moller)
>

>>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>>
>>14.30 Location
>>http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/....html#sec14.30

>>
>>Hmm yes. That sounds convincing.
>>Never trusts rfcs not recommended by me. ;-)
>>
>>Here is one for you:
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
>>
>>It clearly describes relative referencing. (Part 4 and 5 mainly)

>
I'm familiar with it, but even the most recent and generalized RFC for
URI syntax doesn't change the meaning of "absolute URI", which is
required in the HTTP RFC. RFC 3986 just defines what an absolute URI
actually is.
>

Hi Micha,

For clearity's sake: I completely agree with you that sticking to the
standards makes sense in almost all circumstances.
Deciding WHO decides what the standards are is my current problem.

My meager knowledge of picking the right RFC is to blame. I have dived into
a few, but I have trouble deciding on their 'weight'/importance.

I wonder, which RFC are considered to define standards by most people when
it comes to HTTP and the like?
Do you have/know of some list?

I am a bit confused because just the other day somebody in some javascript
newsgroup made it clear that just the fact somebody dumps a RFC doesn't
make it worth your while.
This is NOT my area of expertise, and I wonder which ones are worth reading
and which not. How do you/others approach that?

TIA

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>>But you haven't seen all. And browsers are not the only user agents. A
>>bug doesn't become less of a bug, just because it works in the majority.

>>
>>Well, that may be true.
>>I only aim my php for internetbrowser s, so I don't know jack about other
>>agents.
>>Thanks for the warning though.

>
I can remember someone having a strange problem with using a relative
URI and a query string in a Location header, which didn't work in Lynx
or something like that. The problem vanished after changing to an
absolute URI. It was posted to a German newsgroup, but I didn't bookmark
it and can't find it at Google Groups at the moment ... :(
>
Of course it doesn't really prove anything, but at least it shows that
there might be problems, which can easily be avoided by just following
the standards. Be it HTML, CSS or HTTP - it's always a good idea to
adhere to the written standards, because then it's not your fault if
something goes wrong.
>
Micha

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: redirection question

Erwin Moller wrote:

I wonder, which RFC are considered to define standards by most people when
it comes to HTTP and the like?
Do you have/know of some list?

Wow- you'd have to use several RFC's for that.
Most to all of the RFC's reference other RFC's.
For example - the ones for HTTP requires a knowledge of the ones
for DNS - and likley httpS as well.

This is NOT my area of expertise, and I wonder which ones are worth reading
and which not. How do you/others approach that?

[John Dunlop]

Re: redirection question

Erwin Moller:

My meager knowledge of picking the right RFC is to blame. I have dived into
a few, but I have trouble deciding on their 'weight'/importance.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/

--
Jock

[Erwin Moller]

Re: redirection question

John Dunlop wrote:

Erwin Moller:
>

>My meager knowledge of picking the right RFC is to blame. I have dived
>into a few, but I have trouble deciding on their 'weight'/importance.

>

http://www.rfc-editor.org/

>
--
Jock

Hi,

Thanks for the guidance.
This is from their FAQ:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html

Are all RFCs Internet standards documents?
In a word, "NO!".

Many RFCs have Informational or Experimental status and do not represent any
kind of standard. They contain information that may be useful or important
to retain in this archival document series.


This is important to understand, because unscrupulous marketeers and a
careless trade press sometimes falsely suggest that every RFC represents a
standard, or that all standards have equal weight. The relationship among
Internet technical specifications is often complex.

How can one tell where in the standards track an RFC is?
Consult the online document "Internet Official Protocol Standards". We
periodically publish a snapshot of this information as an RFC whose number
is divisible by 100; the latest such RFC is STD 1.

These links are also on the RFC Search and Retrieval page.

Which answers my question. :-)

Thanks.

Regards,
Erwin Moller