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


From: Josh <josh@early.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199708102354.TAA25625@orac.early.com>
To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Cc: kweide@tezcat.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4152
According to John Franks,
> the purpose, but at least this semantics is not intrinsically  useless.
> Perhaps it would be helpful to have a sentence in the specification
> saying "The capability semantics of the response version header is
> intended (solely?) for the benefit of clients which wish to implement
> certain features not compatible with the HTTP version with which they
> are conditionally compliant."  Had I been aware of this I would not

when a client is 1.0 and the server is 1.1, then this
would be true, the response header has no meaning except the
server's highest version (for subsequent responses) since it
can assume a 1.0 entity respondse since it gave a 1.0 request.

However, when a client is 1.1 and the server is 1.0, the client
cant make assumptions about the reponse, it uses the response
version to notice that it is talkig to a 1.0 server.


Josh R Cohen /Server Engineer 				       josh@early.com
Netscape Communications Corp. 				       josh@geeks.org
(This message is sent from my private email account to reach me for 
	business related issues, mailto:josh@netscape.com )
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 16:55:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC