- From: Abigail <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:02:03 -0500 (EST)
- To: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
- Cc: abigail@ny.fnx.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
You, Blake Winton, wrote: ++ ++ 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)... That's very interesting... you log and study all the requests your users do? ++ 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? I don't think you can reverse the situation. A client doesn't know which HTTP version the server uses; a server does know which version the client uses. Abigail
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 10:03:59 UTC