W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:38:52 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian McBarron <bpm@google.com>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080407153851.GB719@shareable.org>

Adrien de Croy wrote:
> For what it's worth, RFC 1945 (HTTP 1.0) specified the existence of 1xx 
> response codes, and defined them as provisional, however specified that 
> there aren't any valid 1xx responses to any HTTP/1.0 request (seems to 
> be predicting a later iteration of the protocol).
> 
> so anyway, the concept of a provisional (and therefore to be ignored) 
> 1xx class of responses was defined in 1.0, so if we're lucky then people 
> who implemented 1.0 proxies read that and they should be able to cope 
> with them.

Unfortunately RFC 1945 says nothing about what 'provisional' means.  I
don't see any language that even suggests it is followed by another
response to the same request.

> I think until we adopt proper handling of uploads (i.e. pre-authorised / 
> negotiated etc) we'll have problems - esp with large uploads and auth.  
> But there I go flogging that poor dead horse again...

I'm looking forward to being invited to that HTTP/2.0 design list when
you (or Google/Microsoft/Adobe by the looks of things) get around to it ;-)

-- Jamie
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 15:39:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT