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