- From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 22:11:50 -0500
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, jg@w3.org, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, ari@netscape.com, paulle@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jeff@step.mcom.com
At 17:50 96.03.19 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote: >I too find that 2 is unacceptable. Protocol easthetics is not nearly >good enough a reason to break compatibility on such a fundamental >level. This is not a matter of aesthetics, it is a matter of long-term operability/ survivability of HTTP on the network. If we could *guarantee* accurate implementations of other strategies, I'd actually have fewer problems with them. For example, let's assume that we "require" that "host" be present in all cases as a way out. That certainly simplifies the protocol a bit, because client implementations don't have to make choices about when to send it. But "require" doesn't mean anything -- there is no way to enforce the requirement. Even if we "require" that servers return an error message, it just pushes the problem a bit further out. We will find, I'm afraid inevitably, that some idiot will decide to not bother sending "host" in the interest of a few extra cycles of efficiency and that other idiots will make the server error message a configurable option, also in the interest of efficiency. Extrapolation from the history of the Internet predicts to a lot of such idiots. And, behold, we will be exactly where we are today, but with one more sometimes-implemented, effectively optional, bag on the side of the protocol. To fix it, we will have to change "GET" (and "POST", etc.). Maybe we will call what we get then HTTP 1.3, maybe 2.0, but that is another decision that is in the hands of the WG (and the industry). But, if the big sticking point now is "1.1 has to be compatible with 1.0, and we can't put a change like this in without calling it 2.0", then I suggest the problem is important enough to justify a full version number. The assumption that this new collection of features and patches has to be "1.1" should, IMO, be treated as just that -- a working assumption, not something inevitable if good engineering requires otherwise. john
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 1996 19:31:28 UTC