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

Re: 301/302

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>, Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970730084938.22862C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>


On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Why, you could have different configuration directives, so that
> .cgi files would be HTTP/1.0 and .cgi11 files would be HTTP/1.1,
> or .asp would be HTTP/1.0 and .asq would be HTTP/1.1, etc.
> 
> It's easy for servers to have a mechanism for determining if
> a script is 1.0 or 1.1.

The problem is servers which have not been upgraded receiving unexpected
request method transforms from clients which have been upgraded.

Given our rather confusing wording in the past about 301 and 302, we
have a legacy of servers which won't expect what we now want them
to receive.

Yaron's proposal makes sense to me. This is another bit of historical
cruft in the protocol.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 1997 09:03:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:50 EDT