- From: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:27:08 -0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Jamie Lokier escribió:
> Well, in principle you can try extensions privately ("Expect:
> x-my-experiment") and they can be orthogonal. Version numbering
> forces linearity: if you handle feature Z, you must handle feature X
> and Y too.
>
> Also, agents tend to report they are HTTP/1.1 even when they are
> grossly non-compliant. I suspect that's due to it being a version to
> aim for, and they do support some features of 1.1, and reporting the
> version is advantageous. If expectations were able to be used, naming
> individual features, I suspect agents wouldn't pretend to handle all
> features.
Agreed. I'm having that discussion about an app-specific protocol too,
suggesting devs to use a "capability list" instead of checking for
version numbers. (even worse: the current server is checking for the
*client version*, the protocol itself isn't versioned at all, that will
work so nicely (not!) with alternate implementations...)
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 23:28:06 UTC