No, I don't think so. Even though servers MUST accept absoluteURI form Request-URIs, HTTP/1.1 clients MUST transmit abs_path Request-URIs when talking to an origin server:
"The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a resource on an origin server or gateway. In this case the absolute path of the URI MUST be transmitted (see section 3.2.1, abs_path) as the Request-URI...
I think you'll find that existing web servers will ACCEPT an absoluteURI Request-URI in an HTTP/1.1 request, but they will try to proxy that request to themselves.
> Randy
>
>
> At 04:10 AM 6/10/98 +0000, Carl Kugler wrote:
> >> At 06:13 PM 6/9/98 -0700, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> > I think that originally "printer-uri" was going to be a "virtual"
> >> >attribute,
> >> > as you thought. But later (last Fall?) we changed the Model and
> >> >Protocol
> >> > document so that the "printer-uri" attribute was required to be
> >> >supplied
> >> > by the client and include in the operation attribute group in the
> >> >IPP packet
> >> > (which is defined by the application/ipp MIME type). The thinking
> >> > was that we wanted the IPP packet and MIME type to be independent
> >> > of the transport. So that we could send IPP over any transport,
> >> >such
> >> > as SMTP or FTP, for examples.
> >> >
> >> >OK. So we are saying that the URIs IN the protocol are NOT to be used as
> >> >transport adresses. They are in effect opaque cookies that the client must
> >> >do nothing with except send them back to the printer. They are really
> >> >job-name and printer-name. Either that or we explicitly state that these
> >> >fields only make sense in an HTTP-enabled environment (they cannot
> therefore
> >> >be mandatory for a universal protocol).
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, the URI is actually a URL that is to be interpreted according to
> >> "standard" rules for interpreting URLs (not sure if there is a "formal"
> >> standard for this). These resource identifiers are not opaque to clients.
> >> This does not mean that we are NOT transport independent, it only means we
> >> are identifying resources that must be accessed via the transport (scheme)
> >> that is specified in the URL. Since we have "modeled" IPP using URI/URL
> >> resource identifiers, all transports used by IPP should have a URL scheme
> >> defined. I don't think this is a negative constraint BTW. I consider our
> >> selection of URL strings as resource identifiers one of the more compact
> >> and powerful capabilities of the model (and protocol).
> >>
> >> The only problem we have identified so far is what happens when "http" is
> >> used as the scheme for IPP resources, and between the client and the
> >> resource, there is one or more proxies involved. Note, that this is a
> >> problem only in the case of HTTP as the transport.
> >>
> >Another problem is that PRO requires the HTTP Request-URI and the target URI
> (embedded in the application/ipp) to be the same (absolute) URIs, but HTTP/1.1
> clients aren't allowed to send absolute Request-URIs unless they're talking to
> a proxy. And proxies rewrite the Request-URI.
> >
> >> For reference purposes, can someone restate the problem (actually the
> >> scenario) with proxies that we are trying to address. I think some
> >> solutions that have recently hit the list are bordering on "throwing the
> >> baby out with the bath water". Any concrete scenario examples would be much
> >> appreciated, as I am still on the learning curve with HTTP proxy behavior.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>