W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 1996

Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:57:57 -0800 (PST)
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95.961231175500.2142A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, David W. Morris wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> > compatible server. In this scenario, it would be neccessary for
> > HTTP/1.1 servers to always use HTTP/1.1 in the response.
> 
> Another choice is to stop overloading a single value for two 
> purposes ...
>   1.  Declaring the servers capabilities
>   2.  Labeling the level of the response
> 
> A new optional header for example could advertise the server's
> capabilities and the status would be just that ... status describing
> this response.

Yes, that possibility was also in my message.

> The beauty of the extra header is that it would allow a response
> to a HTTP/1.x request to note that HTTP/2.x is also supported ...

Hmm. Isn't this where Upgrade: was intended to be used? Something like:

GET /something HTTP/1.1
Upgrade: HTTP/2.0

and then the server would respond with 2.0 if it supported it? That's
what section 14.41 of the HTTP/1.1 spec would seem to indicate.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>      The Apache HTTP Server
URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/   http://www.apache.org/
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 20:59:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:20 GMT