- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:46:08 -0400
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: "Henry Sanders (Exchange)" <henrysa@exchange.microsoft.com>, Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>>>> "Henry Sanders (Exchange)" <henrysa@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>: HS> This proposal sounds good, except for the bit about having a HS> Compliance: header on any request. I really dislike that part - HS> it's just one more thing for the server to have to check for and HS> deal with on every request. What's the rationale behind that? I'd HS> much prefer to see it specifed as only applicable to OPTIONS. I agree; I'm not convinced that piggybacking the Compliance on other methods would be usefull. In particular, would such a header provide information on what features are available for _any_ method, or only the one to which the Compliance header was attached? For the time being (that is, the next version of HTTP/1.1) I think that introducing Compliance (and possibly Non-Compliance) as a header to be used with OPTIONS is sufficient. If we do not define any behaviour for it with other methods, future versions of HTTP can attempt to do so based on experience with the many new aspects we are defining. -- Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com> Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 1997 18:52:12 UTC