Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU> wrote:
  > [...]
  > The HTTP-Version is not a "single field", so arguments suggesting that
  > there be a separate field for "capability" are groundless.  The major
  > version defines the message format and the minor version defines the
  > capability within that format.  Were it not for that fact, there would
  > be no reason to have a separate major and minor version.  Personally,
  > I cannot conceive of any other interpretation of what is in the RFC, and
  > I know that is what I intended when I wrote it two years ago, so I don't
  > understand the need for this debate unless people want to change the
  > intended design of HTTP/1.x.  If so, I think it is incumbent on those
  > people to prove that the change is necessary and not simply "consistent
  > with what you would expect".  It is easier to change expectations than
  > it is to change HTTP/1.x.

I don't think the discussion is over the major/minor version structure.
I believe I understand (and heartily defend) the version number structure.

Notwithstanding Roy's intent two years ago, what is abundantly clear is
that the intent does *not* come through in the text, or there wouldn't
be two good-faith interpretations with (I'll venture) comparable
numbers of proponents, each claiming the "preferred" interpretation.

Both sides have made their arguments, and I won't rehash them.  I will
argue that the words in the text should be clarified either to take one
of the positions or to state explicitly that a conforming
implementation can follow either position.  While I find the latter
choice perverse, at least it will avoid finger-pointing by one camp's
saying the other violates the spec.

Dave Kristol