What was the intent here? I can't imagine that it was the intent of the WG to require HTTP/1.1 clients to send Connection tokens in perpetuity for backwards compatibility. Well, actually, yes. Which is to say, from what I can recall after so many years, the key point is that it is far more important for clients to get the right answers than to have all connections persistent (and I say this as one of the people who most forcefully pushed the idea of persistent connections). We also (probably correctly) assumed that HTTP/1.0 implementations would never entirely disappear. If you want to break compatibility with HTTP/1.0, it's time to switch to HTTP/2.x. (Please don't invite me to join the HTTP/2.0 working group.) Beyond that, it might be worth re-reading RFC2145 ("Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers") rather than re-deriving the arguments captured there. -JeffReceived on Friday, 22 September 2006 21:26:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:22:14 GMT