On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, David W. Morris wrote: > 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. Yes, that possibility was also in my message. > 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 ... Hmm. Isn't this where Upgrade: was intended to be used? Something like: GET /something HTTP/1.1 Upgrade: HTTP/2.0 and then the server would respond with 2.0 if it supported it? That's what section 14.41 of the HTTP/1.1 spec would seem to indicate. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> The Apache HTTP Server URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 18:00:40 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:25 EDT