Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

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...)