- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:39:58 -0800 (PST)
- To: BearHeart / Bill Weinman <bearheart@bearnet.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> #2 (Full URL) may give server admins a real incentive to > switch over quickly--the impulse to jealously guard bandwidth > can be powerful. > > I may have to run a 1.0 and 1.1 server simultaneously on separate > IP addresses for a while, but I don't think it would take long to > switch over with that kind of incentive. Please be realistic -- full HTTP/1.1 support in a server can't be done overnight -- and the spec is much less tolerant about non-fully compliant servers this time. Hence -- you won't necessarily have your favorite HTTP/1.1 server available the moment there is a HTTP/1.1 client around, and you have bug reports flowing in because your server is 'broken' for the new 1.1 client. In any case -- whether the host is in the URL or the Host: header is a mere matter of taste. One of them breaks things, the other doesn't -- so which one do we pick? Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen ari@netscape.com Netscape Communications Corp. http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/ 685 East Middlefield Road Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Netscape Server Development Team
Received on Monday, 18 March 1996 22:43:09 UTC