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

Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 23:44:38 GMT
To: "'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>
Message-Id: <32cc462a.3729002@spyglass.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2244
>>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. 

Even without a proxy, 1.1 headers are likely useful and should be sent.  A
client may not be comfortable advertising itself as 1.1 because of a few of
its deficiencies, but it may implement some of the features the new 1.1
headers deal with, like byte ranging (Accept-Ranges), Cache-Control, Vary,

Congrats on the RFC number everyone!  Nice way to start a New Year.

Daniel DuBois, Traveling Coderman        www.spyglass.com/~ddubois
Received on Thursday, 2 January 1997 16:07:26 UTC

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