Re: Moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

At 12:00 AM 12/27/95, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>I thought we were only going to include a brief note about these
>features which are implemented on *some* systems, and not bother
>to specify them fully (i.e., list the additional header field names
>and their purpose, and explain why each one is not in the main spec).

Ah. I hadn't understood that was the desire, but I certainly agree with it.
I'll do another round quite soon with much less in it.

There is also the question of downgrading "musts", since this is an
informational document.

And, on a separate note, I'll be taking the "Allow" header out of the 1.0
doc since only one known server appears to emit it. Worse, that one server
does it incorrectly (it always emits GET HEAD POST even for URIs where POST
is not allowed...).

--Paul Hoffman
--Internet Mail Consortium

Received on Wednesday, 27 December 1995 10:11:16 UTC