W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: Server response version number

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:41:22 -0700
To: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com
Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <9610212041.aa06806@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1854
> This thread of discussion, however, does raise the question of why 
> backward compatibility is not required by the spec (since it is an 
> issue sure to be addressed by implementers). 

It was, in earlier drafts, but various people insisted that it be removed.

> This leads me to another question: I have seen some discussion 
> in the archives of what version an implementation should claim, but 
> nothing definitive (maybe I missed it).  When is it safe for an 
> implementation to claim "HTTP/1.1" compliance (in terms of standards 
> milestones)? 

As of the beginning of last month (when the IESG accepted draft 07 as
an RFC without any major changes).  It is now unlikely that any significant
protocol requirements will be added without a corresponding bump in the
version number, which is my definition of being safe to claim "HTTP/1.1"
compliance, since there *will* be many implementations calling themselves
HTTP/1.1 before the spec can be revised again.

Received on Monday, 21 October 1996 20:45:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:21 UTC