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


From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 21:57:44 +0100
Message-Id: <33EE2B48.EFD40B3@algroup.co.uk>
To: HTTP WG <cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@http-wg.uucp>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4145
Klaus Weide wrote:
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/patches/apply_to_1.2.1/msie_4_0b2_fixes.patch>.
> By the way, that workaround at first look (according to the included
> description of the problem) seems to be a practical application of the
> exemption in RFC 2145 2.3 last para:
>   "An HTTP server MAY send a lower response version, if it is known or
>    suspected that the client incorrectly implements the HTTP
>    specification, but this should not be the default, and this SHOULD
>    NOT be done if the request version is HTTP/1.1 or greater."
> On second look, it seems that the desired "downgrading" effect for the
> client in question could also be achieved by sending "Connection: close"
> and not sending chunked entities, while still responding with "HTTP/1.1".

Maybe so, I see no virtue in that. What is the point of complying to the
standard while working around a broken beta? The solution we implemented
was expedient. We should, perhaps, note that, if the directive is used,
the server no longer complies with RFC 2145.



Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 14:55:40 UTC

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