W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: #184: HTTP/0.9

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:29:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4A819C5F.9040807@rowe-clan.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/184>
>> p1 appendix B:
>>
>> It is worth noting that, at the time of composing this specification
>> (1996), we would expect commercial HTTP/1.1 servers to:
>>
>>     • recognize the format of the Request-Line for HTTP/0.9, 1.0, and
>> 1.1 requests;
>>     • understand any valid request in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or
>> 1.1;
>>     • respond appropriately with a message in the same major version
>> used by the client.
> 
> This was discussed in Stockholm, and the feeling in the room was that we
> should remove HTTP/0.9 from this text. Although it wasn't specifically
> discussed, we'll also change the date.
> 
> Any further comments?

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.

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:

...

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

WDYT?
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 17:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT