W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:50:57 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <g4k417lg7j4qkpbdiihl1g45st4v2kc35i@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>One (of many) of the issues with 1xx responses is that people don't know
>how to surface two responses to one request in APIs and tools. 
>
>I think we could make things a bit easier for folks if we stated that
>the headers in a 1xx response are semantically not significant; i.e.,
>it's OK for APIs, etc. to drop them on the floor, because the only
>information is in the status code.
>
>This would mean that people shouldn't put headers on a 1xx response and
>expect applications to see them -- which I think is already the case
>today.

The WebSocket protocol as currently proposed makes use of headers in the
101 Switching Protocols response and I suspect "Sec-WebSocket-Protocol"
will end up with the application somehow, but I haven't looked lately. I
also note that with protocol switches, you don't get two responses, just
the one and after that it's no longer HTTP, so maybe they can be special
under such a rule.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Monday, 4 July 2011 23:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:44 GMT