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, 05 Sep 1997 20:10:48 +0100
Message-Id: <34105938.BDDC544@algroup.co.uk>
To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4339
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> >>>>> "RTF" == Roy T Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> writes:
> RTF> It will be a while before applications can transition to using all of the
> RTF> features of HTTP/1.1 without looking at the User-Agent or Server field
> RTF> first, but we have to start somewhere.
>   How so?  If a server gets a request labeled HTTP/1.1, it should
>   treat it as one and respond with 1.1; the complexity of looking at
>   User-Agent values and making some decision based on them is too much
>   to contemplate (especially since many browsers lie in thier
>   User-Agent headers).

Practical experience has shown us (the Apache Group) that it is not
possible to deploy a fully compliant HTTP/1.1 server without making
allowance for broken browsers.

The complexity, we have found, is minimal, but it is, of course, tedious
that we have to do it.

I don't think it is true to say that "many browsers lie in thier
User-Agent headers", BTW.



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 Friday, 5 September 1997 12:16:03 UTC

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