Re: #184: HTTP/0.9

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> ...
> The assumption that HTTP/0.9 should be understood shouldn't be removed
> until HTTP/1.2, I'd expect?  Surely there are many slim clients that
> rely on trivial http: requests, even today.

Really?

What's the situation for today's servers, such as recent httpds, IIS, 
Tomcat..,?

> The date shouldn't be changed, but you are right that it makes little
> sense in 2616bis... what about
> 
>   It is worth noting that, at the time RFC2616 was composed (1996), we would
>   expect commercial HTTP/1.1 servers to:
> 
> ...

s/we would expect/we did expect/

In which case the reader will ask: "and as of 2009?"

> And that leaves the compatibility sentiment without suggesting it applies
> to 2009, or adding new editorial comment about 0.9/1.0 support.
> 
> WDYT?

It appears you're trying to avoid the question what we expect as of 
*2009*, and that's really what the reader would want to know (me thinks).

BR, Julian