W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: 301/302

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 21:28:42 -0500 (EST)
To: josh@netscape.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01IN7XR6WRAC0000PK@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4305
Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com> wrote:
>>      The "307" proposal will allow CGI scripts to work with at
>> least 99% probability of success with both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1
>> browsers.  Think about it some more.  Try it, you'll like it!!! :) :)
>So, am I correct in saying that the new CGI must check the version
>of the *REQUEST* before deciding which code to send back ?

	Yes.  And the old CGI scripts will work fine > 99% of the time,
because 302 is "General (temporary) Redirection" which 99% of the
HTTP/1.0 browsers convert to GET, and all of the HTTP/1.1 browsers will
do as well (at their "discretion" :).

>I assume that SERVER_VERSION is the server version, not the request
>version.  I dont have the CGI stuff in front of me, is there
>a variable to tell the CGI script what the request version was ?

	Heaven help us who are typo prone (and particularly those of
us who are getting old and senile :).  That's SERVER_PROTOCOL, and
it's whatever HTTP/major.minor version the browser, itself, claimed
in its request.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 18:34:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:28 UTC