W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 21:41:27 -0600 (CST)
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961231213136.22046A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2220
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, David W. Morris wrote:
> 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 ...

This seems to be by far the best solution.  The status line can only
communicate one of 1. or 2. above.  People are making arguments that
each is important in some circumstances.  It seems to be sometimes 
(but not always) possible to derive one from the other.  The working 
group is having trouble deciding which of the two is the "right" meaning
of the status line.  Dave's suggestion addresses all these points.

The second best solution would be Simon Spero's suggestion.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 19:44:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC