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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: <S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:10:41 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <13243.9612221210@strachey.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk, brian@organic.com, hedlund@best.com, dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2165
David W. Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
> > My browser keeps a list of sites recently visited and their HTTP version
> > precisely so it can avoid confusing them.
> What will it do in the future when an HTTP/1.2 site declares itself?

Treat it as a 1.1 server and send it 1.1 requests, since the major
version matches (it is 1) and the minor version is >= 1.  Obviously, if
a process starts to define HTTP/1.2 I'll look at adding an
implementation of it.

> Until this discussion started, my interpretation was that n HTTP/1.0
> request should always receive HTTP/1.0 in the status line.

I don't agree - but I don't have the documents here to back myself up.

Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~snb94r/      http://delenn.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
Received on Sunday, 22 December 1996 04:13:27 UTC

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