- From: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:34:06 -0500
- To: abigail@ny.fnx.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 12:05 PM 12/30/96 -0500, you, Abigail, wrote: >Bob Jernigan wrote: >++ > In my opinion, the server should not include HTTP/1.1 headers which are >++ > not part of HTTP/1.0 when responding to a HTTP/1.0 request, and label >++ > the response as being HTTP/1.0. >++ It's not the response that being labeled by the HTTP/1.1 header, it's >++ the server's capability. There would be no reason to send an HTTP >++ header if it only had to match the client's request. >It doesn't have to match. A server could respond with an HTTP header >*less* than the request. Pardon my newness,but why should it not be allowed to respond with an HTTP header *greater* than the request? From a system log point of view, the extra information might be nice to know. If I see that all my users are connecting to HTTP/1.1 sites, then I might think about upgrading the browsers that we use (if I had any users, that is)... And why is the reverse problem not being discussed? I guess it must be fairly clear what should happen when a 1.1 client sends a 1.1 header to a 1.0 server, so why not just follow that procedure for this situation? Blake.
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 09:36:35 UTC