W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:11:33 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199701011411.PAA14900@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2223
Alexei Kosut:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Koen Holtman wrote:
>> Dave Kristol:
>> >
>> >Let me make some assumptions.  They may be controversial, but I haven't
>> >seen substantial contradictory evidence:
>> >
>> >1) The HTTP/1.1 draft is clear about which HTTP/1.1 headers cannot be
>> >sent to HTTP/1.0 clients.
>> >
>> >2) If an HTTP/1.1 server sends a response labeled as HTTP/1.1, but with
>> >only HTTP/1.0-compatible headers, HTTP/1.0 clients will understand
>> >it.
>> Ugh.  I don't know what twist in this thread caused you to make those
>> assumptions, but they paint a completely wrong picture of the actual
>> situation.
>No, I don't think that's wrong. Dave's point 2) refers more to the
>"HTTP/1.1" label than the headers, 

??  I think it refers to headers.

>and point 1) is correct. 

Actually, Dave's point 2) is correct too, but it fails to mention that
1.0 clients will *also* understand responses which include all kinds
of headers *not* defined by HTTP/1.0.

>There are
>some headers that don't work with HTTP/1.0.  I guess they *could* be
>sent... but page 23 does say "A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings
>to an HTTP/1.0 client," for example.

A transfer encoding is an encoding of the message body, it is not a
header.  Even AOL's proxy did not break on the presence of a HTTP/1.1
header.  It broke on the the presence of the HTTP/1.1 version number.

>Alexei Kosut

Received on Wednesday, 1 January 1997 06:16:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC