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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:53:15 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970102135314.0067dd68@incontext.ca>
To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 11:14 AM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Applications MUST send the highest version number with which they are at
>> >least conditionally compliant in each message.
>>   The HTTP version of an application is the highest HTTP version for which
>>   the application is at least conditionally compliant.
>But what is being defined here is the protocol version of an application.
>Applications and messages are different things.

But it says that that's what it should send out in each message.
 
>Yes, but this is a bit ambiguous. I interpret it to mean that a sender
>using a protocl version of 1.x claims conditional compliance with HTTP/1.x.
>In other words, the version number indicates the capability of the sencder
>in the sense that it guarantees a minimum capability on the part of the
>sender. You seem to interpret it as meaning tht the sender is asserting tht
>1.x is its maximum capability. Both are valid accorcing to the rules of
>English grammar. 

And thus the debate...  :)

>My point is simply that the version number in the response indicates the
>version number of the response (not the server).

But, (from the spec,)
>> >Applications MUST send the highest version number with which they are at
>> >least conditionally compliant in each message.

Is a response not a message?
Therefore, should the server not send the highest version number with which
it is at least conditionally compliant?
Or, is a server not an application?

>As someone else has
>pointed out, it is irrelevant whether a 1.1 response would be legal as a
>1.0 response, it is still a 1.1 responsed and properly labeled as such.
>Servers should not have to try to determine the minimum protocol level for
>which their responses are valid. 

Agreed, but they should also make sure that they're responses are valid
for the minimum of "what was requested" and "what they can handle".

>> P.S.  I'm reading the mailing list, and it seems to get here before e-mail
>>       which is sent directly to me, so I would be as happy not to get two
>>       copies of any given message, if the rest of you don't mind.  :)
>Sorry, I was being lazy. When I reply, your address shows up on the To: 
>line and the list on the Cc: line. To reply to just the list I need to
>either cut and paste the address to the To: line or enter it by hand. I'll
>do this is in the future. 

No prob...  If it's any trouble, don't worry about it.

Blake.
Received on Thursday, 2 January 1997 10:57:23 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:25 EDT