Posted by Erwin Moller on 02/01/07 09:34

Michael Fesser wrote:

> .oO(Erwin Moller)
>
>>Michael Fesser wrote:
>>>
>>> 14.30 Location
>>> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.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 internetbrowsers, 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

[Back to original message]