- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:52:24 -0800 (PST)
- To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote: > Clients may be (in fact, are) implementing HTTP/1.1 incrementally, > and thus may support some HTTP/1.1 features, but still be declaring > themselves as HTTP/1.0. It most certainly is helpful for their > development to receive the HTTP/1.1 headers. Such clients also may be > sending some of the HTTP/1.1 headers, if they're relevant to the > features they handle, and don't result in things they can't yet handle. There is nothing to stop use of HTTP/1.1 headers or mechanisms in a response to any HTTP/1.0 request as long as the ignore unknown headers rule will keep the 1.0 client from being confused. I continue to believe that a response which conforms to HTTP/1.0 should be labeled as being an HTTP/1.0 response. That it happens to have additional useful headers unknown to HTTP/1.0 doesn't make it anything but a HTTP/1.0 response. As neither the client nor the server author, but rather a network administrator in the middle, I would find it much more precise to see a server I knew to be HTTP/1.1 capable returning a HTTP/1.0 status in response to a HTTP/1.0 request because that would hint to me that the server knew it was downgrading the response. If the status is HTTP/1.1 it would suggest that the server might not have noticed the request to be 1.0 Truth is labeling! Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 16:57:55 UTC