- From: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:27:02 -0600 (CST)
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
<snip> > >- Are there less extreme positions that make sense? > > Yes, and they are the ones I thought there was consensus on. Most people > indicated they supported Jim's "#4", which, to quote it exactly, says: > > a) Add host header, with improved wording in the specification. > b) Require 1.1 server to accept full URL from 1.1 or later client. > (so far, same as option 3). > c) Require server to generate an error if a 1.1 client is detected, and no host > information present (or more strongly, at the expense of extra bytes on > the wire, no host header present). > Transition to requiring full URL in 1.2, after 1.0 servers have been > replaced. > > With some exact wording, that seems completely clear to me. It will not > break the current Web, it will not greatly increase the traffic silently, > it will not cause people to shun 1.1 clients, and will be easy to check > compliance on. > > --Paul Hoffman > --Internet Mail Consortium The area that is unclear to me, is.. Are 1.1 servers REQUIRED to understand the full URL? I think it makes sense to have 1.1 servers understand either format. -- Elizabeth(Beth) Frank NCSA Server Development Team efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Received on Friday, 22 March 1996 13:34:06 UTC