W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: Server response version number

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:50:53 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199610211950.VAA15059@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: jcma@ai.mit.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-http@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1849
Jeffrey Mogul:
>As for whether a server should return
>   (a)  min(request-version, server's-highest-version)
>or just
>   (b)  server's-highest-version
>I don't have a strong opinion.

I don't have a strong opinion either.  (b) makes for more interesting
diagnostics, but that is about it.

It is important to note here that, as the 1.1 spec does not tell
whether to do (a) or (b) if the numbers are 1.0 and 1.1, it therefore
allows both.  So if you are implementing a server, pick either one.

If this WG were to make a definitive statement that you must either
pick (a) or (b), that would amount to us updating the 1.1 spec, and we
want to avoid doing that.

Of course, if things break because the spec allows both (a) and (b),
we will have no choice but to update the spec.  We will only find out
about such breakage however if some implementers do (a) while others
do (b)...


Received on Monday, 21 October 1996 13:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC