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: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 10:47:45 +0100
Message-Id: <33E1B0C1.4473E1A9@algroup.co.uk>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4051
Larry Masinter wrote:
> >
> > Surely if one never changes the semantics of existing headers it is not
> > necessary to know which version is being used?
> No; we may not change the semantics of headers, but we're changing
> the requirements for what it means to be 1.1 compliant, vs. 1.0.
> If you don't know that you're 1.1 compliant -- that your script
> satisfies all of the requirements that are MUST for 1.1, then you
> need to label the response as 1.0.

OK. It still seems to me that the correct thing to do is to fix CGI. A
simple thing to do would be to add a version header:

CGI-Version: 1.1

Absence of the header means the script is 1.0 compliant. This is not an
HTTP header - the server would strip it, I assume, and doctor other
headers as needed.



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 Friday, 1 August 1997 02:49:32 UTC

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