- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>, Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.ca>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Shel Kaphan wrote: > Benjamin Franz writes: > ... > > > > Ok. All of these cases work ok. So the problem has got to be when you > > stick a proxy in the line. How does mandating charsets break proxies? > > I don't see it. > > > > -- > > Benjamin Franz > > > > > > One case is when a 1.1 proxy receives a document from a 1.0 server, > and it is unlabelled. The proxy stores the document in its cache, and > on a later request from a 1.1 client, has to do something about the > charset. If charset labelling is mandatory the proxy has to guess, > which is not going to work. So if charset labelling is mandatory in > 1.1, either the proxy has to have some way of indicating the content > has an unknown charset, or (ugh) it would have to revert to 1.0 > protocol so that it could legally send an unlabelled response. Reverting to 1.0 may not be pretty - but it has the tremendous virtue of *working*. It seems the right thing to do in any case. Attempting to 'upgrade' a response from 1.0 to 1.1 seems questionable practice at best and promises to break things. -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Monday, 8 July 1996 08:12:35 UTC