- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:43:32 -0800 (PST)
- To: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
- Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote: > compatible server. In this scenario, it would be neccessary for > HTTP/1.1 servers to always use HTTP/1.1 in the response. Another choice is to stop overloading a single value for two purposes ... 1. Declaring the servers capabilities 2. Labeling the level of the response A new optional header for example could advertise the server's capabilities and the status would be just that ... status describing this response. The beauty of the extra header is that it would allow a response to a HTTP/1.x request to note that HTTP/2.x is also supported ... Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 16:50:03 UTC