The following reply was made to PR protocol/1014; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Dean Gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: protocol/1014: Please, use Content-Location: header? Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:01:48 -0700 (PDT) But index.html is really just an artifact of the implementation. When you ask for /foo/ you're asking for the directory object, not the /foo/index.html object. That the two are (sometimes) the same is really just an implmentation detail. That's why I don't agree with doing this. If in the unix file system you could have a file and directory with the same name then index.html wouldn't be a special case... Some sites are "lazy" and refer to directories both by /foo/ and /foo/index.html, they would benefit from your proposed feature. But it would hurt sites that deliberately hide these details from the user. I think caches using Content-Location would have the same problems with reliability that Netscape didn't agree with. For example, suppose I access www.yadda.edu/~studenta/ and it includes Content-Location: http://www.yadda.edu/~studentb/ ... you've successfully poluted a cache. Dean
