W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: Opinion on Notify Request Header

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 11:25:22 -0800
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <9611041125.aa28623@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Larry wrote:
> Oh, so it's a versioning issue, not a client capability issue. That
> makes sense. Status might be signalled by a
> 
>     102 Processing
> 
> status code, probably with an entity body which contains the actual
> status. This would signal the client that the server is still working
> on the request and not to time out.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why 1xx codes were re-introduced.

> We could add a new request header which indicates a client's
> willingness to accept such a status code, or else just bundle it in
> with HTTP/1.2
> 	  GET uri HTTP/1.2
> 
> would be the signal that '102 processing' responses are acceptable.

Unnecessary. Any HTTP/1.1 client must treat all unrecognized 1xx responses
as if they were 100 responses.  Any client that doesn't is not using HTTP/1.1.
The only thing you have to remind people of is that they can't send or
forward any 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client.

.....Roy (and any implementer that screws-up on that part of the protocol
          is going to get a severe thrashing from me, since it is the key
          to status extensibility)
Received on Monday, 4 November 1996 14:55:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:41 GMT