- From: <hallam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 15:43:08 -0500
- To: Bob Jernigan <jern@spaceaix.jhuapl.edu>
- Cc: hallam@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I really don't understand the arguments concerning 0.9. It really does have very little use. Consider the simplest possible HTTP 1.1 request GET /foo/bar.html HTTP/1.1 Host: www.foobar.com:80 I don't think that this is very much more complex! Then we have the simplest reply parser:- 1) Check for HTTP/x.x 2) If not present we have hit one of the very few remaining 0.9 servers. act accordingly 3) Otherwise gobble up the status code and headers. If the first digit of the status code was a 2 we have some content. Otherwise we don't. If a language makes it difficult to implement such code easily then the solution is to try a new language. Perl and TK implementations are not madatory for IETF acceptance. There are decent libraries arround in any case. I would like to see a statement to the effect that 0.9 will be phased out in future versions of the protocol. For the entire period of use of 0.9 it has been subject to future revision. Its existence has never been guarnteed. When 0.9 was superceeded there were fewer than 100 Web servers in operation. I would be suprized if any of those servers was still in operation (bar possibly the REXX based servers on CERNVM and DESY-NEWLIB which are in any case condemned machines). If one considers some of the problems occurring becuase of unread input etc. I very much doubt that many platforms could support a 0.9 server which is unaware of 1.0 with any great reliability. Remember that in the days of 0.9 the Web was in any case pretty ropey which was part of the need for a change. If a 1.0 client connects to a 0.9 server the headers part of the 1.0 request will be unread by the server. This will in turn mean that the server will close the socket with unread data which in many stacks causes a reset command to be sent which is likely to result in unread data. This type of effect was a common problem in the 0.9 to 1.0 upgrade period. The simplicity of implementing 0.9 should be set against the complexity of supporting 0.9 in a 1.1 framework. I don't think we should continue to discuss the issue at this time. The best we can do in 1.1 is to warn people that 0.9 may not be required in future and that clients must not assume that it will be avaliable. Phill
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 1996 12:51:47 UTC