W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:34:06 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19961230123405.00681104@incontext.ca>
To: abigail@ny.fnx.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 12:05 PM 12/30/96 -0500, you, Abigail, wrote:
>Bob Jernigan wrote:
>++ > In my opinion, the server should not include HTTP/1.1 headers which are
>++ > not part of HTTP/1.0 when responding to a HTTP/1.0 request, and label
>++ > the response as being HTTP/1.0.
>++ It's not the response that being labeled by the HTTP/1.1 header, it's
>++ the server's capability.  There would be no reason to send an HTTP
>++ header if it only had to match the client's request.
>It doesn't have to match. A server could respond with an HTTP header
>*less* than the request.

Pardon my newness,but why should it not be allowed to respond with an HTTP
header *greater* than the request?  From a system log point of view, the
extra information might be nice to know.  If I see that all my users are
connecting to HTTP/1.1 sites, then I might think about upgrading the browsers
that we use (if I had any users, that is)...

And why is the reverse problem not being discussed?
I guess it must be fairly clear what should happen when a 1.1 client sends
a 1.1 header to a 1.0 server, so why not just follow that procedure for this
situation?

Blake.
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 09:36:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:20 EDT