- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:50:41 +0100 (MET)
- To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Cc: jg@w3.org, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net, ari@netscape.com, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jeff@step.mcom.com
Ari Luotonen: >> There was a statement by Ari Luotonen at the IETF meeting that he >> believed that solution 2) to be unacceptable to Netscape. Ari, is >> this true now that you've had time to think about it? Paul, can you >> see what Microsoft's opinion on this topic is? > >Yes, 2 is unacceptable. We'd be breaking the entire universe, or >making an ugly kludge if we then require a retry with 1.0 if and when >the server doesn't accept the 1.1 request. I too find that 2 is unacceptable. Protocol easthetics is not nearly good enough a reason to break compatibility on such a fundamental level. >Ari Luotonen ari@netscape.com Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 1996 08:56:39 UTC