- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:04:09 -0700
- To: "John C. Mallery" <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Are you saying that 1.0 clients do not ignore headers they don't understand?
> Or are you trying to say don't send chunked encoded stuff to 1.0 clients?
The latter.
> I checked every occurence of MUST in the spec to make sure we were conforming,
> and I believe we are.
Great -- but what I was saying is that you can't be sure you are conforming
until the document stops changing, which means when the IESG recommends
it for RFC status. So, you need to wait for that before you can ship
software that responds with "HTTP/1.1 200 OK".
I don't anticipate any more changes to the protocol, but stranger things
have happened. I'd like to minimize the number of noncompliant servers
advertizing HTTP/1.1, and one way to do that is to encourage people to
implement the features within HTTP/1.0 first and only switch the version
when it can be tested against a completed RFC.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 15 August 1996 17:19:43 UTC