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

RE: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:31:17 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-970102233117Z-15819@INET-02-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, "'Joel N. Weber II'" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'www-talk@www10.w3.org'" <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2243

>From: 	Joel N. Weber II[SMTP:nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, December 31, 1996 12:45 PM
>To: 	Dave Kristol
>Cc: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com; www-talk@www10.w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version
>There's no reason I see that it's nessisary to send HTTP/1.1 headers
>in response to HTTP/1.0 requests.

Yes there is.  Suppose there is a 1.0 proxy in between a 1.1 client and
server -- the server definitely may want to include Cache-Control
headers to optimize the caching in the (potentially) 1.1 client, but the
server will see 1.0 in the request because of the 1.0 proxy. 

Received on Thursday, 2 January 1997 16:02:31 UTC

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