W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: Two proposals for HTTP/2.0

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 12:26:19 PST
To: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <94Nov17.122630pst.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> Changing the request syntax to include a full URL will preclude NEW clients
> being able to talk to OLD servers.

Are you really proposing that HTTP/2.0 be kept compatible with
HTTP/1.0 such that old HTTP/1.0 servers could ignore the "HTTP/2.0" in
the GET request and respond as if it were a HTTP/1.0 request?  Any
protocol change for HTTP will have to be staged by first getting most
of the servers to upgrade.  If there are no changes proposed that
would actually require some different response, then why bother
calling it 'HTTP/2.0' at all?

Actually, this gets me to a point where I want to stop talking about
HTTP/2.0 at *all*: we need a specification/standard for HTTP/1.0, as
an IETF RFC, either an "informational" one or as a "draft standard".

Is anyone willing to volunteer to put such a beast together?
Received on Thursday, 17 November 1994 12:28:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:10 UTC