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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Bob Jernigan <jern@spaceaix.jhuapl.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:06:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <9612301806.AA12757@sdrmis.jhuapl.edu>
To: abigail@ny.fnx.com
Cc: jern@spaceaix.jhuapl.edu, swingard@spyglass.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Abigail wrote:
> 
> You, 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.
> ++ > 
> ++ > Abigail
> ++ > 
> ++ 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.
> 
> Abigail
> 
Yes, the server would do that if couldn't serve at the level requested,
it which case it is advertizing its capability level.  Of course, in
this case the browser is burdened with handling the downgraded response,
i.e., it must not expect the headers that aren't there.

bob
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 10:10:44 EST

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