W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: 505 response a MUST?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 19:39:12 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, jg@w3.org, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5418
At 10:18 3/1/98 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote:
>  That logic does not seem sound to me - if changing the major version
>number means that the protocol _may_ be not backward compatible, then a
>recipient that does not implement 2.0 cannot know whether or not it can
>_correctly_ interpret the message as a 1.1 message.  Your logic assumes
>that the authors of 2.0 will not make any semantic changes to existing
>protocol elements.

Yes indeed - this is quite important for something like Mandatory, if we
want ever to be able to not use it without the method name fix. If there is
any use of the version number at all then an application must assume that
it can't understand a major version higher than what it knows about.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@w3.org>
World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Sunday, 1 March 1998 16:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC