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

Re: 301/302

From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 18:47:07 +0100
Message-Id: <33DF7E1B.567DE1C4@algroup.co.uk>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4017
Larry Masinter wrote:
> Why, you could have different configuration directives, so that
> .cgi files would be HTTP/1.0 and .cgi11 files would be HTTP/1.1,
> or .asp would be HTTP/1.0 and .asq would be HTTP/1.1, etc.
> It's easy for servers to have a mechanism for determining if
> a script is 1.0 or 1.1.

True, and we could have decided that there was no point in having
version numbers in HTTP, because we could just have a naming covention
for servers, www.* == HTTP/0.9, www10.* == HTTP/1.0, www11.* ==

It may work, but its junk.



Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email:
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 1997 10:48:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC